The reading and writing of video games

The second query that popped up during my presentation was whether you could categories  video games as being either read or written by players. This is a pretty good query which I've looked at somewhat through my research, but for the most part it requires a bunch of methodologies in order to operate in a significant way. Or rather to be properly understood.

Thinking about this I can see some problems that can arise from this dichotomy of reading and writing, it sort of presupposes that you can't do both at the same time (or rather it's hard to think of doing both). But I'l raise these queries later after we've worked out what this theory can do.

First thing's first though, what does one mean by players reading and writing video games?

Reading can be taken as the player following on from what the game (or developer) expects them to do, running around, building things, shooting things, jumping, etc. More or less following the cues of the game. First person shooters and adventure games generally follow this method of audience interaction.

Writing can be taken as the player making their own meaning from the game, jumping when they shouldn't jump, shooting where they shouldn't, building what should not technically be built. It should be noted that I'm presenting writing as an adversarial counter point to what the game/developers encourage. The point to be made here is that these specific actions aren't necessary to occur for the game. They are actions that the player does of their own volition. A good example of this would be Super Mario Maker or The Sims - especially in consideration of how players have subverted the cues given in the game.

This is somewhat a relevant to the notion of active and passive interactions from Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's work (he's not just all about Flow theory). These active interactions are an ongoing process  that produces mental or physical exertion (or a combination of the two) to form an activity. Whereas passive is usually just a mental activity which can be thought of as traditional mediums (books, movies, tv shows).

The implementation of this theory would be to display that way that games can tell, or how games can provide the means for story. Though how both is encountered in games is a bit more mysterious.
This makes it so that games are either telling or providing the means for story - not a collaboration of both, which can be seen in a variety of video games. The story in Halo is based on the exploits of Master Chief (blowing up the Halo ring), but it also provides the means for the player to construct some of those exploits (defeating 5 elites with no ammo).

This means that games are telling and providing the means at the same time for story creation. And so the way that we discuss games should reflect this dual nature (but also be happy to mix them). So a distinct binary might not be the way to go, but at this early stage starts the discussion about what types of stories can come out of video games.

Travelling and presenting!

Recently I gave a talk on my proposed PhD concerning Narrative Structures within Videogames (which you can see the powerpoint slides here), which went very well at Gothenburg University. It seems strange to have a holiday and then be presenting, trying to write papers, fixing up PhD work, but I guess that's how things work out when you like your work.

Over the next week or two (before Christmas), I'll be attempting to write up further blog posts (since I should have more free time). This is mainly to highlight previous work, but to also discuss issues that have risen with my PhD.

Namely the all encompassing nature of frameworks, or rather why narrative isn't the end all of games.

In the presentation I left room to account for games that don't have a strictly defined narrative and pointed towards the nebulous (at least how I described it - I'm not trying to besmirch Juul) concept of emergent narratives. Here narratives are thought of as emerging out of the game from set pieces of content which the player could decide as being integral to their narrative (so a cardinal function), or purely circumstantial (a catalyst). A nice category, or so I thought.

###

Could you account for platformers or simulations in this type of category?

Sure thing. (This type of easy applicability I was happy with)

Well what about games that have a strong bent towards the abstract - something like Angry Birds?

(Fair enough question, I think for a moment)

The thing to note here is that I'm not trying to make grand claims about how narrative controls or is everything within a game - there's other accounts for that. (Nodding heads are in the crowd). What this does is provide the possibility for those types of games to be analysed in a narrative manner - the effectiveness of this, is another matter entirely. Really these games should focus on the structure of their design, so the effect of their aesthetics, colour and sound, not purely this notion of text. I don't want to be Janet Murray making grand claims about puzzle games, but rather allowing for the possibility for those types of narratives to be there.

###

I think I resolve the issues with using narrative structures for non-narrative games there. To make things simpler it would be far better to remove the category to prevent these sorts of grand statements about video games. But then I'd be removing a large portion of non-traditional narrative games (such as Crusader Kings II or FTL). To a large part I might have to just simply stick by my guns and reiterate that there are other methods of analysing the "story" of Angry Birds, or Solitaire that are better suited to design studies or aesthetic studies.

The next concern was the notion of how interpretation/storytelling works within videogames - how they can be read, but also written by the player (which can totally be a paper). But that is a query for another time.

Melbourne Games Week

It's been an interesting few months with chapters, journals, and tutorials. But hopefully that's all slowed down enough so that I can squeeze in a few more words here and there.

Melbourne Games Week

 

Filled With Freeplay, GCAP, Pax Aus, and a bunch of other little events which seek to bridge the gap between local game developers and the rest of Melbourne (as it seems to be with any festival). You can check out the full run of programs here. 

It's a weird sort of program set between what local people are developing as independent studios or student groups, and the larger international entities which dip in and out of Australia with the dollar. It seems a strange beast, because of this and I don't think anyone outside of the industry can really tell what's occurring within. Some people might be excited about Armello, Framed, Hacknet or any other Australian game, but not necessarily know about the developers behind those games. I guess at the very least MIGW offers people a chance to meet those developers.

But is that it? Is MIGW making sure that we recognise successes that have occurred within our industry, or is it a way of encouraging more developments and discussions?

Going to the Freeplay Parellels event I was amazed at the game on offer there, but many of the audience were game developers or game academics who already travel in these circles and had some inkling of the games being developed. (Full list here). That didn't diminish what was being offered, especially in light of the fact that some of the games were well on their way to being published. It was more the fact that the community, while certainly bigger, didn't seem to be opening up to wider audiences. Though delving into game theory and discussing the intricacies of player agency might not be everyone's cup of tea, it would have been nice to see a bigger turnout, and with that a more definitive way of promoting Australian Games.

Project VeN See: https://twitter.com/projectven

Which is another way of saying that there needs to be something more than hearing about  local content from overseas news sources first, and then locally. Case in point this year both Hacknet, and Armello I only delved into after hearing about both on Polygon and Giantbomb. More shame to me, I guess for not finding out about these projects sooner. But it does seem strange that with all this local talent occurring that it's only after the fact of success that they're displayed at local game conventions, let alone talked about by people on the street. I think last year I had the opportunity to talk to Alexander Bruce about Antichamber at PAX 2014, and I was surprised that there was enough space and time to talk to him - a lot of people were lining up for the League of Legends display or waiting in line for a chance to play the (just released?) new Super Smash. Which all in all is fair enough, but it seems curious that the local talent that is prevalent, and even largely successful is only slightly noticed at these events.

Armello, which is a pretty great game, akin to Talisman the board game.

It would be great to have a closer focus during these events on local talent, and production - something which has definitely picked up over the years, but needs to be nurtured even more to achieve the recognition it deserves. Part of that would be a wish to actively promote and publish works, or review works by Australian developers as an independent magazine/zine/web presence. Another would be to rely on the preexisting gaming communities that can comment and discuss on Australian developers (such as Kotaku, or Good Game). Though nothing really seems to have been produced that focuses exclusively on Australian videogames, or culture.

Well that's the dream anyway. Maybe after this week there might be more present (since from the look of things there's a large presence of Australian content this year (or perhaps I'm just more aware of it).

Expeditions: Conquistador

Recently I've been playing Expeditions: Conquistador which is a great turn based strategy game in which you control a small group of Spanish Conquistadors in their search for fame and fortune. It suffers from a little lack of polish, graphically, but for the most part it shines well in the dialogue and the historical sensibilities it displays. It by no means is a historically accurate game, but for the unique perspective that the time period offers there's a lot of interesting development that can come into play.

But point and center is it's approach on colonialism, or rather subjugating anything that moves. Although the question could potentially be presented as something a little more refined - historically accurate, for example - it's something that video games regularly come into. Videogames like any other media depict a variety of content, some of it controversial. But I suppose there's another question here.

Should players enjoy the variety of choice? The ability to perform as historically accurate Conquistadors? Or to break off historical semblance and side with the native South Americans?

There's a nice side-quest about mutiny interspersed in the tutorial.

Bop*

It's a difficult ting to answer as there's a certain amount of responsibility in the player's choice, but also in the range of options presented. Expeditions gets around this by providing a reason for every action, or a reward, as well as presenting a range of options which are argued for and against by the members of your Spanish expedition. In this the game gives a neutral area for ideas where nothing is presented as particularly enticing, and that all ideas are presented as rather equal. At least that's the hope of it's presentation, I think. Civilization III with it's inclusion of slaves provides much the same defense of why it can have historically unsettling aspects to it's gameplay. There isn't a blind acceptance of slavery in either game, but it nevertheless shows the effect of slavery, as well as the option to participate. Which in terms of providing a responsible history is great, but also in the realm of freedom of information makes sure to include these aspects for the player to encounter - why should it be hidden?

Last option reads "FILTHY SAVAGES KILL THEM ALL!"

There's some arguments towards the fictious nature of the game being a good platform to present a softer history of the world (if it's already altered why not alter it some more?). Towards a stronger responsibility of developers (circa Mortal Kombat). And the age old since there's an interaction in it there's more of an impact or agreement by the player (do videogames make us more violent).  Although something to be wary of here, there's not enough space (or for me personally time) to get involved in all the arguments for and against these points. But to put it simply, there's some truths you can't leave out, and players aren't that impressionable (we hope).

It seems that there's a bigger push to present these types of problems of slavery, racism, human-sacrifice, sexism, into fictional worlds, rather than to present them as realities withing videogames. Fiction sells more than truth within videogames. I mean one only has to look at the depictions of race and the surrounding dialogue in The Witcher III, Dragon Age and other RPGs to see that while developers want to deal with these sorts of issues - just from a distance.

Expeditions though seems to cut as closely as it can to the historical "truth" and difficult topics to give the best sort game around to play. Fun, smart, with a side of history, and just the right amount of respect to get it out of trouble.

Mini - Review, Consortium

It isn’t often that you’re framed within the confines of your computer, within the fact that the game you’re playing is just a game, and that the events that you perform can be done over and over with different consequences happening each time. Consortium is exactly that game, taking a good look at what it means to be a game in 2014, or rather what it means to be playing an alternative dimensional, multi-fractural event via satellite, or at least that’s what the game sets it up as.

It’s unassuming and confident in what it is. A Canadian developed, Kickstarter funded, choice smorgasbord, with funny dialogue options, and somewhat poor shooting sections. But you know what?

It didn’t patronise me, it didn’t turn snarky at all, it went through all the various computations no matter what zany ideas I had planned. It held mystery, it held game lore, it held interesting dialogue that made me want to look up half forgotten films and crime pulp fiction.

And it achieved what the Stanley Parable achieved, a twisting turning plot that pushed you from one set of events to another, made you question your role, your ethical choices in this fictious world, and time and time again would prove to be self-aware, and fun.

To run through the game’s plot quickly (which is not at all recommended), you take control (literally) of Bishop 6 on a high tech plane, in one of many multi-verses and... interact with the crew. At a glance that's the entire premise of the game. Except as you start playing and mucking about it isn’t, you find out that you're imposing your will onto Bishop 6 as some sort of foreign entity, that there’s a spy on board the plane,  a conspiracy (maybe),  terrorist jets flying dangerously close to your port hole and pages upon pages of information to flesh out the world. In short a lot of content in a tiny area (think Gone Home but with people!).

Talking to characters feels like a dangerous game as topics get closer and closer to the fourth wall until they eventually break through. And when it does… the game keeps going. It’s as though the developers had thought of how you could possibly break the game, over and over, and then decided to account for all the possibilities they could think of. The result? A fresh game with every play through.

It’s fun, it’s crazy, it challenges the way you think about playing games- the closest thing I can think of would be The Last Express in terms of the closed system that exists while playing a narrative based game.

It gives that freedom to play in a different way and rewards you for it, giving out more and more in-game lore till you stumble across a different mystery. And unlike Stanley Parable it doesn’t try to make you feel bad for trying different things – at least in the way the dialogue is delivered. I’d love to say more about Consortium, but the game is meant to be explored. Giving too much away ruins the experience (at least from my perspective of just hearing that it’s a good game, and then discovering a whole lot more).

There’s only two ways that you could really fault the game, the clunky combat sections, which while interesting aren’t really fun (though they do provide for some different choices/results in the narrative), and the short length of the game. Both of these faults are completely understandable in terms of focusing on the positives. The combat can be seen as not a major part of the game (it’s nothing spectacular), but allows for the player to experience things differently, but also gives a sort of "fail state" to what would otherwise be a safe game. The length of the game is due to the width of content available - understanding everything that occurs within the game requires a lot of replays, as events will occur at the same time (two important conversations at once, much like The Last Express). While if the player's goal is simply to get to the end of the game the narrative will definitely not be long enough, however if the player (like me) is interested in exploring the world and characters and unresolved story arcs then there's definitely enough content to explore and "Work through" (good ol ergodic literature). Case in point, you can spend hours seeking out data entries.  

If anything an apt comparison would be The Last Express, although not as dynamic as Consortium, The Last Express manages to incorporate an adaptive AI that would move around the train carriages, taking into account the player’s actions and location to incorporate it into the plot – making different play throughs interesting to say the least. It’s interesting, as well, to compare to The Stanley Parable as well, since the themes of choice and metagame/metanarrative constructions is explored within that game as well. Except in a not as much a fun way, you're constantly butting your head against the fourth wall, as opposed to it being integrated into the plot (as it is done in Consortium)

In this comparison it seems easy to place The Stanley Parable as snarky and self-righteous in the way that it presents itself, waving  philosophical waxing all over the audience in a disparaging manner. Although both games wish to point to the set nature of plots and the limits of video games, it felt for me that The Stanley Parable went further to alienate audiences (or rather me) with its arrogance, irritating with it's pompous the voice acting, and slowly but surely ending with players eventually stopping their play. Which may or may not be a satisfactory ending depending on the player. 

So yeah, a pretty fun game, that I'll try to compare more with The Last Express, and other games that seem to take in their stride the constraints of videogames (I'm looking at you Outcast).

Fate, Agency and narrative

I was having a discussion with my supervisor (as one is prone to do at university), and the discussion of agency, as inevitably happens in games discussion came up, but it came up with a twist in regards to Life is Strange.

Although not made explicit Life is Strange is one of those games which lets the player run along with their choices, or the twoing and froing that can occur within a videogame. Much like the rewind power in Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, Life is Strange uses time mechanics to go and provide players with an in-game mechanic. Although while PoP uses it in conjunction with it's in-fighting, to provide that perfect fight, Life is Strange does the same thing, but instead of it dictating whether or not a sword thrust made it to your belly, it instead allows players more room to see the consequences of their actions, an in-game version of reloading and saving their game.

Although the game manages to game this system (in that decisions don't have their long term consequences revealed until an episode or two later), it does raise an interesting application for allowing audiences to play with choice. Although in other video games (Telltale Games in particular stand out), consequences of choices may not be abundantly clear prior to a player making them (indicating if it were the sequence of events), most players choose to make a decision, before reloading and choosing another option - indeed if the post game percentage of player is an indicator, players post completing a game will replay the game to have the "best" choice made available. Life is Strange manages to give players enough of ownership in their choices in order to see it through - but furthermore, the game makes staying with these choices crucially part of the narrative.

The plot points build upon set narrative pieces, as well as specific actions done by the player enough so that the player's effect is felt and then reflected in the plot on screen - or at least enough to grab the player's attention (see illusionary agency). Players get a chance to see all the possible choices in each section before moving on (with the rewind time function) and as a result of that their choices have a bigger impact. Purely because the game has given it's audience more of a moment to settle in with their choice, to own it instead of brushing ahead with the immediate reactions to it. Well, that's at least one part of it, the other would be the constant references back to the decisions made, and the internal dialogue that plays out in terms of referencing. This includes not only the immediate reaction, but also later consequences that occur two or three episodes later. Decisions have a staying power that seems to make a big impact in the world - that's not to mention the great use of supporting characters who both react to your actions, but also have their own lives that you can glimpse into. Although not necessary for the plot (at least in some cases), it definitely makes for a much more liveable world that has the scope for exploration. All this stuff is what I'd like to plot for my thesis, or failing that start talking about in papers (something about metalepsis).

Indeed in the latest episode Chaos Theory, in the conclusion, the effects of trying to alter too much are shown (addressing some of the concerns of the game's audience), resulting in a bizarro alternative world where there's a limited frame of reference to any of the events in the previous episodes. Here the effects of a conscientious player trying for the "best game," can be revealed, as like Max their meddling can break the world. Although the player's power isn't omnipotent, it is considerable enough to break the world. And in the same way that Max breaks her world through altering something, considered to be unalterable, the game gives players a hint about their rewinding/saving-loading power, it's a powerful thing, but it can be abused. This is probably reading way too much into the video game, but it is an interesting message that ties in well with the mechanics of the game, as well as the game narrative - it's a really interesting piece of work.

Further with this choice of player choice, is the option to read the world and the choices present in a  Nichomachean Ethics/Virtue Ethics, kind of way. In that, for the game and the player, keeping a consistent idea of a character, that is to say making sure not to deviate outside of what the character might do, the most "true," game can be had by the player. This is somewhat helped by the themes within the story of trying to consistently change fate, in line with what the main character Max believes to be best - I mean most people would try to do just that given the power to rewind time. However it really does seem that in being, at the very least consistent (as is the case for most RPG games) seems to be the most rewarding in-game as it provides a much more logical narrative than one that jumps around with character development. Though that being said, most games/narratives do rely on their main character having a consistent character which leads to personal discovery, rather than an ambivalent sense of self, or virtue. In either case keeping consistent seems to be the key to having a good narrative, or narrative experience.

Anyhow, that's my 10 cents worth of blogging for today, though I will say that the game is an interesting one to study, as it provides a lot of different mechanics and narratives in interesting combinations. Including disempowering it's players at a crucial junction - raising the dramatic stakes of the narrative, through the loss of controls (literally and figuratively). Though that's a discussion for another time.

Other thoughts would be to draw parallels from Life is Strange, and having a comparison with the Witcher 3 of the characterisation of the world, or the way that characters interact with each other (as opposed of solely with the player). There's some other games that do this well (I think Psychonaughts is up there), but these are the most recent that work with this notion of having other characters progressing in the same world as the player (or at least giving a good simulation of it). At least in a storytelling game.

Interesting talks

Tutoring and corrections got the better of me, but here is nonetheless some writeups of talks within the CTP 2015 conference. These are the ones that have particularly stood by me in regards to influencing research direction and also provided food for thought for the last two months (time does fly when you're correcting work).

More Than Decoration: Exploring History Through Game Mechanics 

Josh Unsworthy

Josh Unsworthy gave a great presentation that looked into game mechanics informing the diegetic (narrative) history of videogames. In the same way that Rowan Tulloch (and man do I cite that guy a lot) talks about how the use of game objectives reinforce the narrative of Bioshock (Would you kindly...) Unsworthy argues for a greater use of historical resources in order to inform gameplay.

Although Unsworthy doesn't point to a particular scholar to cement these ideas together, his points echo my own concerns regarding storytelling within videogames, gameplay should be able to influence narrative. Unsworthy does one better and runs with this idea of gameplay reinforcing history, but furthermore that it should get away from military and nation building (Total War), and look to other alternatives (Valiant Hearts was nearly discussed to death during questions, and then again the next day when there was a panel on it - however it has good alternative gameplay mechanics).

I liked the presentations as well as the scope of games that Unsworthy looked at, so I'm very interested to see where the final product takes him. Hopefully there will be a few more alternative solutions to the violent gameplay mechanics and a few more civic tasks that are capable of changing perspectives on what history is within games (more than a backdrop). Maybe they'll start influencing the direction of stories? One can hope.

The Great Divide: Differing Expectations of Accuracy and Authenticity in Heritage Video-Games

Tara Copplestone

Tara Copplestone presented an interesting talk detailing the expectations of three different groups: developers, historians and gamers, in relation to depictions of history within videogames. In this numerous questions were asked regarding the authenticity and accuracy of history in videogames through their application, implications, and differences (or improvements). In anycase it was something I was interested to hear as it was quantifiable research (152 surveys), and for two it provided a good overview of what each group expected from the medium (a lot of people including myself at the conference presupposed a 'good student' mentality on the part of players).

Copplestone's findings were that expectations and concerns of each group were not shared by the others, as such what was made clear as a result of this research that there was a lack of communication evident between all three groups. For a more detailed analysis you can look to a blog which Copplestone's put up.

There's a lot more to go in here regarding the concerns and worries of each individual group, however a large portion of that is simply interpreting Copplestone's data rather than looking through her findings. What I liked about the presentation was that it didn't simply present the data and say "do with it what you will," but offered a good analysis of what the data meant, and looked for ways to solve this divide between different stakeholders in historical mediums. Something which I'd like to think I was also trying to do with my idea of applying references withing videogames, although not communication in an active way (not a lot of web 2.0 to and fro action occurring) it's at the very least being transparent about historical sources.


Will do more in time/have a lengthy post quicksmart (tutorials finished this week).

Back in the Saddle

Well I presented at Challenge the Past 2015 in Gothenburg, not bad for my first international conference. I also note that it's been a couple of weeks (how about months) since the last blogpost, but seeing how there's been papers, potential chapters (shh), and six or so classes to teach, I'm not going to berate myself too much.

So! Sweden, international conference on historical games! From Valiant Hearts to Civilization! From historical reconstruction, to constructing (gasp!) fictions in museums and the fun business of how their can be history in videogames (ahem, ahem* my paper). Here's a link to the conference proceedings if you're interested.

To my surprise it was a very busy conference, both in terms of different ideas and the number of people present. Not that I was complaining, it was a good collision of minds, so much so that I may have been tempted a number of times to completely change my thesis topic (since it's only a year in, simple child's play). Though I didn't, what I did do instead was remain captivated by a number of presentations on everything to do with history in videogames. Dale Andrews, Edwidge Lelièvre,

Johannes Koski, Josh Unsworth (impressive talk, basically historical-diegetic mechanics), Carl-Erik Engqvist (with a great boardgame workshop), Tara Copplestone (great survey research on developers, historians, and players), Adam Sofronijevic, Iain Donald, and Michal Zmuda, were just some of the speakers that I saw and talked to throughout the conference. There are others of course, but these are the people who spring to mind first, and also, perhaps more importantly, the ones who I know I wrote down notes for - or at the very least scholars that I want to borrow ideas from. 

So the plan is over the next two weeks (while I have  a "break,") is to do a mini write up of a couple of the presentations, put down some thoughts, criticisms, and highlight interesting notions that I'd like to see followed up. In lieu of that tonight I'll put up my B roll of presentations, so that people can see what could've been.

Enjoy!

Title: A Cleaner history, no slaves, no plagues, more fair, less real. Civilization's development towards gaming.

Games: Civilization 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5

Focus: 2, 3 and 5

Brief: Development of Civilization series to be more politically correct, but also fairer from a gameplay perspective. Historically not so much. Slight comparison to Alpha Centauri and Beyond Earth.

Title: Terrorism Could Nod. Westwood pre-empting the development of Terrorism.

Games: Command and Conquer, and Command and Conquer: Generals

Brief: A look into the perspective of Westwood's development of political fiction. A comparison of global events at the time of the original Command and Conquer, and the later developments made for both Command and Conquer: Generals, in it's portrayal of China and terrorist groups.

Title: The World that Never was. Crimson Skies and Harold Hughes: living the impossible dreams.

Game: Crimson Skies

Brief: Alternative history is firmly based upon some historical facts/experimental design. This can be shown in a case study of Crimson Skies. Furthermore alternative histories takes great pains to match or at least mirror current history. (Perhaps slight reference to Battlefield - Secret weapons of WW2/weapons in WW2).

Title: The Last Express – Historical accuracy and fiction intertwined?

Game: The Last Express

Research direction : Look at Jordan Mercher interview, and notes on The Last Express, and the situating nature of the game.

Brief: A look into the mixture of historical fact and fiction throughout the development, and later gameplay of The Last Express. (Potentially link the idea of the Firebird with Vladamir Propp's Morphology of Folktales for some meta-narrative/meta-scholarship).

Eventually I actually presented on the much less awesomely sounding (but more accurate) The Bibliography of Videogames, which did the job of turning a lot of scholarly heads. Here's the brief: 

Video games have increasingly made use of both historic events and scientific information to inform their design. However the representation of such academic, historical and scientific documentation is not a constant within video games, as such the accuracy, let alone the effect that these sources have is hard to gage. Games such as Call of Duty 2¸ Assassin Creed, and Total War: Rome place their references in external sources (interviews, game strategy guides, commentary, etc). However a small number of games point to these sources directly in-game. Games such as Sid Meier’s Alpha Centauri and Fate of the World (both through internal referencing and the presence of a bibliography). The reasons for this split in methods – providing bibliographic information outside of game, and alternatively within the game – will be explored in this paper.

Unfortunately I didn't have enough time to cover everything, but I managed to explain the reasons for why there 'appears' to be bibliographic information in games (hint it may have something to do with marketing and paratext). I'll leave the nitty gritty details for when a publication becomes available.

So until my next bout of free time, I'll catch you.