You can only determine that violence in a video game has gone too far by actually playing the game.
That's why i don't get why so many people are bagging Hatried over a 2 minute trailer. The game isn't even out yet and nobody knows if it's just being violent for the sake of being violent or if there's a deeper artistic purpose to it.
I like Quentin Tarantino's perspective on violence in films. If the violence serves a purpose and fits the mold of the story you're telling, then by all means, make it gruesome. There's a vast difference between films such as Saving Private Ryan's extremely brutal violence or something like the Saw franchise which uses it excessively and without context. making the conflict that builds the violence all the more weak further detaching the perspective. I'll always cringe to the amputation scene from the John Adam's mini series, because for around three minutes it's building to them actually start cutting whereas if I watch something like Hobo With A Shotgun (which I do love for the record) I mostly laugh and feel unaffected because having a prostitute get her arm chopped up only to have repeatedly stab the culprit in his chest and throat with her arm bone was fucking cartoon levels of badass and ridiculous.
I think it might be trying to simply show how a mass murderer might see the world or his victims, which I think is important to stopping these kinds of events before they happen.
You can only determine that violence in a video game has gone too far by actually playing the game.
That's why i don't get why so many pe… moreople are bagging Hatried over a 2 minute trailer. The game isn't even out yet and nobody knows if it's just being violent for the sake of being violent or if there's a deeper artistic purpose to it.
No violence is too violent.
If it's very violent, rate it as such. If you want a game that scares the crap out of you through mortal terr… moreor then have at it BooBoo. Games don't hurt people. As far as I know there is still no legitimately tested link between violence in video games and individuals that are violent.
Playing war and being in war aren't the same thing. If that were the case then all the times I shot my friends with my figures and they acted like they had been shot I was damaging them and myself, which I don't think is particularly true. My God, my black friend and I used to played slave owner....
There is actually little to no evidence liking games and actual violence.Video games are just thing new thing to blame, it was tv before that and rock music before that etc etc
I don't know, but I think my favorite quote that I can use against people who say violence in video games changes children's behavior is thi… mores:
"85 percent of juvenile crime which has been investigated has been found traceable either directly or indirectly to... motion pictures"
-Circa 1910
Seems like video games weren't the only things blamed for bad behavior.
Hey man, I don't think you realize just how impressionable kids are. My parents got me a super nintendo in the early 90s, and next thing I knew, I was out by the pond, jumping on turtles.
Personally, I love violence, at least ridiculous, over-the-top violence. Mortal Kombat is a bit too much, not in violence, in silliness. But ragdoll phsyics? Awesome...
I don't like action movies, but things like Tokyo Gore Police are totally my junkfood movies. Here's another one. I didn't know there was a dub, I saw it with subtitles, but this makes it all the better haha.
I'm not sure I really agree - movies also need a certain level of connectivity with the protagonist, being able to put yourself in their shoes, even if they do morally reprehensible things. I keep mentioning the movie 'Rampage,' and honestly it's a terrible movie. Not because it's so violent, but simply because there is no level of engagement between the character and the audience. There's no point of connection to the character and so the mindless killing is just plain boring. Conversely, you consider something like Taxi Driver, Nightwatcher, or I Saw the Devil, and they're effective simply because you can and do connect with the protagonist and then they connection is manipulated by the director to betray the audience. I haven't seen Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer yet, so I don't know if that would do it, but...
Though your last statement is correct, but that also uncuts your entire point (if I understood correctly) - You say if you connect with those player characters it says something about you; but that means that the player was a little off to begin with, it wasn't a matter of the game's influence. Though I think we're getting into two different discussions - the level of violence as opposed to the context of violence. If you're randomly murdering pregnant women or murdering black people out of racial hatred, then you're talking about the political/social context of the violence, rather than its level. I keep bringing this back to movies because I know movies a lot better, but look at the end of Inglorious Basterds, where they're machine gunning Hitler until his face is putty - there the target is acceptable to all but the most ardent pacifist, and so we're more comfortable with the extreme violence. I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but I think it's important to distinguish complaints about level from complaints about target - or, how the target shapes what we consider 'too much.'
Well, I do think there are examples of "too much violence" in movies just as there are in games. I wouldn't count any of the movies you list… moreed, but something like A Serbian Film or Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom would certainly count (I would strongly advise the faint of heart against clicking on either of those links).
I also think there are important differences we should take note of between movies and video games as forms of media. A video game is a far more perspective-driven medium than a film. When you play a game, you are often, by its very structure, inserted into the game as the protagonist. Your actions become the actions of the protagonist and vice versa. It's this taking of perspective that makes games like Telltale's The Walking Dead so effective, but it's also what makes a game like Hatred or the theoretical KKK game I talked about more concerning than their movie counterparts.
You can watch a movie about a mass murderer … [view original content]
Most good movies do require a level of connectivity with the protagonist, but the audience is still always a passive observer in the story. They don't act through the protagonist as an agent in the world. And I do think there are important psychological differences between watching simulated evil unfold and actively simulating that evil.
My argument wasn't that some video games go too far because they cause players to develop disturbing tendencies. I do think they have the potential to reinforce disturbing tendencies that are already there, but the same can be said of movies and other media. I was just making the general claim that I do think there is a limit at which video game violence should be considered "too far," since most people seemed to think that that wasn't the case.
I don't think we can really dissociate between the "level" of violence and the context of the violence in this conversation. At the end of the day, this is a debate about morality of violent depictions and that's always tied to the moral disgust elicited by violence, which is always tied to the context of the violence. Violence just feels worse when it's inflicted on certain parties and in certain situations. Equating the level of violence in something to the mere quantity of blood and guts, I feel, is a too shallow a measure for it. If that's all we're talking about then I would agree that there's not really a "too far," but I think the discussion runs deeper than that.
I'm not sure I really agree - movies also need a certain level of connectivity with the protagonist, being able to put yourself in their sho… morees, even if they do morally reprehensible things. I keep mentioning the movie 'Rampage,' and honestly it's a terrible movie. Not because it's so violent, but simply because there is no level of engagement between the character and the audience. There's no point of connection to the character and so the mindless killing is just plain boring. Conversely, you consider something like Taxi Driver, Nightwatcher, or I Saw the Devil, and they're effective simply because you can and do connect with the protagonist and then they connection is manipulated by the director to betray the audience. I haven't seen Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer yet, so I don't know if that would do it, but...
Though your last statement is correct, but that also uncuts your entire point (if I understood correctly) - You say if you c… [view original content]
There is actually little to no evidence liking games and actual violence.Video games are just thing new thing to blame, it was tv before that and rock music before that etc etc
Its where the term sadistic comes from, there is far to much for me to explain here plus my nails are preventing me from typing properly so I recommend watching a film called Quills (it came out in 2000) be warned it is sadistic but very good
Do you feel like you need to give Human Centipede 3 a watch before you decide whether it's just shock value for the sake of shock value or if there's a deeper artistic purpose behind it?
You can only determine that violence in a video game has gone too far by actually playing the game.
That's why i don't get why so many pe… moreople are bagging Hatried over a 2 minute trailer. The game isn't even out yet and nobody knows if it's just being violent for the sake of being violent or if there's a deeper artistic purpose to it.
I think it might be trying to simply show how a mass murderer might see the world or his victims, which I think is important to stopping these kinds of events before they happen.
Nowhere in that article does he say he designed Hatred to be violent because it was 'edgy'. He says he designed it to be violent because he wanted to be honest in its portrayal of murder.
Do you feel like you need to give Human Centipede 3 a watch before you decide whether it's just shock value for the sake of shock value or if there's a deeper artistic purpose behind it?
"We wanted to create something contrary to prevailing standards of forcing games to be more polite or nice than they really are or even should be."
"But what I observe these days are games, that used to be considered a rebellious medium, losing that factor and just trying to fit in the nice and sweet pop-culture."
"So we've decided to rebel against this overall trend and go back to the roots."
He made the game to be deliberately "not nice" and "rebellious." You can almost hear the Slipknot playing in the background.
Nowhere in that article does he say he designed Hatred to be violent because it was 'edgy'. He says he designed it to be violent because he wanted to be honest in its portrayal of murder.
Remember when people got really mad and said this went too far lol. Honestly it's up to one thing and one thing only now, parenting. It's no one else's fault the ESRB was made it doesn't matter.
Seriously, though, that voice-over was cringe-worthy as hell. Sounds like it was written by a 10-year old goth kid. In terms of the violence being distasteful, my thoughts remain pretty much the same as they were from the first trailer.
So...Telltale games are more violence and its game has more gore than Mortal Kombat x???? what the F......and who is so stupid enough to do some crazy shit outside????? i just dont think telltale games has so much violence and gore, even in the walking dead games, they didnt use so much gory stuff. and who cares??? its just a game....not for kids of course.
I can only speak on a personal level but I recently heard about Hatred. It's where I draw the line. I've played and enjoyed games such as GTA, Deadspace, and even Manhunt. But from what I read about it, Hatred hit the squick button for me.
no video game or movie has made me think "this is to much for me", the only time i've ever thought something was to much for me was while reading the comic series called "Crossed", its pretty gruesome.
No limit. Developers should be able to incorporate as much violence as they bloody well please to fit their vision of the game.
They shouldn't be restricted or limited because a few idiotic parents couldn't be arsed to read the classification rating on the front of any game case. Besides, it has already been proven that most kids are not psychologically damaged by playing violent video games, only ones who are affected were seriously mentally ill.
Your analogy of war causing psychological problems in beyond stupid. The veterans from these saw their friends killed in front of them, multiple gruesome injuries, and were probably forced to execute innocents at times. When you are gaming you are looking at a TV and tapping a few buttons, not watching people get cut down like cattle in front of your very eyes. Beyond ridiculous comparison.
To play devil's advocate, why should creative freedom be protected in the case of the former and not the latter (assuming we're talking about animated images)?
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to talk about things like this here, but consider a game like Song of Saya (mentioned on Extra Credits) which depicts graphic child rape (actually, she's decades old monster, but she still looks like a prepubescent child). This game has an English port and has been rated by the ESRB (AO, obvs). It's even available on Amazon. Similarly, Honeypop, which was released on Steam, has a secret cat character with an ero scene. The cat says she's one year old in cat years (which is all kinds of creepy), but even then that only translates to about 15 human years...
To my knowledge, the Supreme Court hasn't had a major case on this, and as precident goes, as long as the image can't be mistaken for a real person, it's protected, to my understanding (Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition). From my very limited research, there was only one case in Iowa where somebody made a plea deal for having lolicon, and that was for obscenity, not pornography.
The only really violent things I think at least, is unneeded violence, like just violence for no reason, doesn't connect to the story whatsoever but its still there. Otherwise, I could careless. I guess when I say that though, I mean like certain brutal attacks by a killer in a movie for dumb shock value or things like that. Violence doesn't have a limit, pretty much because in some shape or form its limit has been crossed already somewhere.
You ask who's crazy enough to do that kinda stuff outside?
How about that guy who shot up that movie theater in Colorado, back when The Dark Night Rises premiered?
So...Telltale games are more violence and its game has more gore than Mortal Kombat x???? what the F......and who is so stupid enough to do… more some crazy shit outside????? i just dont think telltale games has so much violence and gore, even in the walking dead games, they didnt use so much gory stuff. and who cares??? its just a game....not for kids of course.
To play devil's advocate, why should creative freedom be protected in the case of the former and not the latter (assuming we're talking abou… moret animated images)?
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to talk about things like this here, but consider a game like Song of Saya (mentioned on Extra Credits) which depicts graphic child rape (actually, she's decades old monster, but she still looks like a prepubescent child). This game has an English port and has been rated by the ESRB (AO, obvs). It's even available on Amazon. Similarly, Honeypop, which was released on Steam, has a secret cat character with an ero scene. The cat says she's one year old in cat years (which is all kinds of creepy), but even then that only translates to about 15 human years...
To my knowledge, the Supreme Court hasn't had a major case on this, and as precident goes, as long as the image can't be mistaken for a real person, it's protected, to my understanding (Ashcroft v Fre… [view original content]
That guy clearly wasn't right in the head. Take a look at his history of mental issues. The man's attempted suicide multiple times in the past.
Personally, I think the idea that video games have much to do with these tragedies is rubbish. The only way in which a person could take video games as a role model is if they don't have anyone else for a role model. Parents need to teach their kids the difference between right and wrong and the difference between a video game and reality. It shouldn't fall to the industry to teach children a lesson on morality.
You ask who's crazy enough to do that kinda stuff outside?
How about that guy who shot up that movie theater in Colorado, back when The Dark Night Rises premiered?
I have to disagree on it being banned. Personally, it should be kept of store shelves and hidden behind the counter, with strict measures to ensure that only responsible, mature adults are able to buy it. It should also be made very clear the content of the game. I personally wouldn't buy a game with child molestation, but if mature adults want to play it for other reasons, then they should be allowed to play it. One thing isn't enough to judge a whole game by, and the game could have a very well-written story which ties the subject matter into it well. For example, the game's story may take place in a society where nothing is done to prevent human trafficking and child abuse, and be created as a way of raising more awareness of the issue.
Essentially what I'm saying is this: yes, it will be disturbing, but it could open people's eyes to the issue. I'll also point out Grand Theft Auto V, which gives you no choice but to take part in torturing a man on the orders of the FBI (or FIB, as they're called in-game). Yes, it's uncomfortable, but that's so you understand how horrible these things are when you realize that these things do exist in real life.
I disagree.
Yes it could be eye-opening, but on the flipside, it could also be feeding people with perverted desires, giving them ideas.
Plus why would any decent person want to play a game with such disgusting content?
Now I'm NOT saying you're like that, far from it.
But what I am saying is, when you weigh-out everything, the pro's and the con's, is it really a good idea?
I have to disagree on it being banned. Personally, it should be kept of store shelves and hidden behind the counter, with strict measures to… more ensure that only responsible, mature adults are able to buy it. It should also be made very clear the content of the game. I personally wouldn't buy a game with child molestation, but if mature adults want to play it for other reasons, then they should be allowed to play it. One thing isn't enough to judge a whole game by, and the game could have a very well-written story which ties the subject matter into it well. For example, the game's story may take place in a society where nothing is done to prevent human trafficking and child abuse, and be created as a way of raising more awareness of the issue.
Essentially what I'm saying is this: yes, it will be disturbing, but it could open people's eyes to the issue. I'll also point out Grand Theft Auto V, which gives you no choice but to take part in tortur… [view original content]
The only limit that exists concerning art is what you like and what it invokes within you. If you do not like a peice of art, then do not concern yourself with it, but rather leave it for those who do appreciate it.
Comments
You can only determine that violence in a video game has gone too far by actually playing the game.
That's why i don't get why so many people are bagging Hatried over a 2 minute trailer. The game isn't even out yet and nobody knows if it's just being violent for the sake of being violent or if there's a deeper artistic purpose to it.
I like Quentin Tarantino's perspective on violence in films. If the violence serves a purpose and fits the mold of the story you're telling, then by all means, make it gruesome. There's a vast difference between films such as Saving Private Ryan's extremely brutal violence or something like the Saw franchise which uses it excessively and without context. making the conflict that builds the violence all the more weak further detaching the perspective. I'll always cringe to the amputation scene from the John Adam's mini series, because for around three minutes it's building to them actually start cutting whereas if I watch something like Hobo With A Shotgun (which I do love for the record) I mostly laugh and feel unaffected because having a prostitute get her arm chopped up only to have repeatedly stab the culprit in his chest and throat with her arm bone was fucking cartoon levels of badass and ridiculous.
There's no limit, you decide YOUR limit.
I think it might be trying to simply show how a mass murderer might see the world or his victims, which I think is important to stopping these kinds of events before they happen.
"slave owner"
...
There is actually little to no evidence liking games and actual violence.Video games are just thing new thing to blame, it was tv before that and rock music before that etc etc
I always said "Don't worry, I'm going to release him."
And I was a man of my word.
lol
Personally, I love violence, at least ridiculous, over-the-top violence. Mortal Kombat is a bit too much, not in violence, in silliness. But ragdoll phsyics? Awesome...
I don't like action movies, but things like Tokyo Gore Police are totally my junkfood movies. Here's another one. I didn't know there was a dub, I saw it with subtitles, but this makes it all the better haha.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyNYx3FJhyw
I'm not sure I really agree - movies also need a certain level of connectivity with the protagonist, being able to put yourself in their shoes, even if they do morally reprehensible things. I keep mentioning the movie 'Rampage,' and honestly it's a terrible movie. Not because it's so violent, but simply because there is no level of engagement between the character and the audience. There's no point of connection to the character and so the mindless killing is just plain boring. Conversely, you consider something like Taxi Driver, Nightwatcher, or I Saw the Devil, and they're effective simply because you can and do connect with the protagonist and then they connection is manipulated by the director to betray the audience. I haven't seen Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer yet, so I don't know if that would do it, but...
Though your last statement is correct, but that also uncuts your entire point (if I understood correctly) - You say if you connect with those player characters it says something about you; but that means that the player was a little off to begin with, it wasn't a matter of the game's influence. Though I think we're getting into two different discussions - the level of violence as opposed to the context of violence. If you're randomly murdering pregnant women or murdering black people out of racial hatred, then you're talking about the political/social context of the violence, rather than its level. I keep bringing this back to movies because I know movies a lot better, but look at the end of Inglorious Basterds, where they're machine gunning Hitler until his face is putty - there the target is acceptable to all but the most ardent pacifist, and so we're more comfortable with the extreme violence. I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but I think it's important to distinguish complaints about level from complaints about target - or, how the target shapes what we consider 'too much.'
Most good movies do require a level of connectivity with the protagonist, but the audience is still always a passive observer in the story. They don't act through the protagonist as an agent in the world. And I do think there are important psychological differences between watching simulated evil unfold and actively simulating that evil.
My argument wasn't that some video games go too far because they cause players to develop disturbing tendencies. I do think they have the potential to reinforce disturbing tendencies that are already there, but the same can be said of movies and other media. I was just making the general claim that I do think there is a limit at which video game violence should be considered "too far," since most people seemed to think that that wasn't the case.
I don't think we can really dissociate between the "level" of violence and the context of the violence in this conversation. At the end of the day, this is a debate about morality of violent depictions and that's always tied to the moral disgust elicited by violence, which is always tied to the context of the violence. Violence just feels worse when it's inflicted on certain parties and in certain situations. Equating the level of violence in something to the mere quantity of blood and guts, I feel, is a too shallow a measure for it. If that's all we're talking about then I would agree that there's not really a "too far," but I think the discussion runs deeper than that.
At one point it was books. Lmao
Its where the term sadistic comes from, there is far to much for me to explain here plus my nails are preventing me from typing properly so I recommend watching a film called Quills (it came out in 2000) be warned it is sadistic but very good
I guess arabs would have been better choice of words
In the 50's it was comics.
What game were you playing that your intention was to kill all arabs?
Do you feel like you need to give Human Centipede 3 a watch before you decide whether it's just shock value for the sake of shock value or if there's a deeper artistic purpose behind it?
Yeah, it's not. It's just a game about viciously killing people for no reason than because it's "edgy."
Nowhere in that article does he say he designed Hatred to be violent because it was 'edgy'. He says he designed it to be violent because he wanted to be honest in its portrayal of murder.
Yes
"We wanted to create something contrary to prevailing standards of forcing games to be more polite or nice than they really are or even should be."
"But what I observe these days are games, that used to be considered a rebellious medium, losing that factor and just trying to fit in the nice and sweet pop-culture."
"So we've decided to rebel against this overall trend and go back to the roots."
He made the game to be deliberately "not nice" and "rebellious." You can almost hear the Slipknot playing in the background.
Fair enough. I can at least appreciate the consistency.
Remember when people got really mad and said this went too far lol. Honestly it's up to one thing and one thing only now, parenting. It's no one else's fault the ESRB was made it doesn't matter.
New trailer for Hatred has been released:
What does everyone think? Is it still going too far?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WoV9Lai1CM
Seriously, though, that voice-over was cringe-worthy as hell. Sounds like it was written by a 10-year old goth kid. In terms of the violence being distasteful, my thoughts remain pretty much the same as they were from the first trailer.
Oh god. I've seen that game. So bizarre, but hilarious.
So...Telltale games are more violence and its game has more gore than Mortal Kombat x???? what the F......and who is so stupid enough to do some crazy shit outside????? i just dont think telltale games has so much violence and gore, even in the walking dead games, they didnt use so much gory stuff. and who cares??? its just a game....not for kids of course.
They made a third one LOL.
I can only speak on a personal level but I recently heard about Hatred. It's where I draw the line. I've played and enjoyed games such as GTA, Deadspace, and even Manhunt. But from what I read about it, Hatred hit the squick button for me.
no video game or movie has made me think "this is to much for me", the only time i've ever thought something was to much for me was while reading the comic series called "Crossed", its pretty gruesome.
No limit. Developers should be able to incorporate as much violence as they bloody well please to fit their vision of the game.
They shouldn't be restricted or limited because a few idiotic parents couldn't be arsed to read the classification rating on the front of any game case. Besides, it has already been proven that most kids are not psychologically damaged by playing violent video games, only ones who are affected were seriously mentally ill.
Your analogy of war causing psychological problems in beyond stupid. The veterans from these saw their friends killed in front of them, multiple gruesome injuries, and were probably forced to execute innocents at times. When you are gaming you are looking at a TV and tapping a few buttons, not watching people get cut down like cattle in front of your very eyes. Beyond ridiculous comparison.
To play devil's advocate, why should creative freedom be protected in the case of the former and not the latter (assuming we're talking about animated images)?
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to talk about things like this here, but consider a game like Song of Saya (mentioned on Extra Credits) which depicts graphic child rape (actually, she's decades old monster, but she still looks like a prepubescent child). This game has an English port and has been rated by the ESRB (AO, obvs). It's even available on Amazon. Similarly, Honeypop, which was released on Steam, has a secret cat character with an ero scene. The cat says she's one year old in cat years (which is all kinds of creepy), but even then that only translates to about 15 human years...
To my knowledge, the Supreme Court hasn't had a major case on this, and as precident goes, as long as the image can't be mistaken for a real person, it's protected, to my understanding (Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition). From my very limited research, there was only one case in Iowa where somebody made a plea deal for having lolicon, and that was for obscenity, not pornography.
The only really violent things I think at least, is unneeded violence, like just violence for no reason, doesn't connect to the story whatsoever but its still there. Otherwise, I could careless. I guess when I say that though, I mean like certain brutal attacks by a killer in a movie for dumb shock value or things like that. Violence doesn't have a limit, pretty much because in some shape or form its limit has been crossed already somewhere.
You ask who's crazy enough to do that kinda stuff outside?
How about that guy who shot up that movie theater in Colorado, back when The Dark Night Rises premiered?
That is really disturbing!
Any type of game that would feature child molestation, should not be allowed anywhere.
It should be banned completely!
That guy clearly wasn't right in the head. Take a look at his history of mental issues. The man's attempted suicide multiple times in the past.
Personally, I think the idea that video games have much to do with these tragedies is rubbish. The only way in which a person could take video games as a role model is if they don't have anyone else for a role model. Parents need to teach their kids the difference between right and wrong and the difference between a video game and reality. It shouldn't fall to the industry to teach children a lesson on morality.
I have to disagree on it being banned. Personally, it should be kept of store shelves and hidden behind the counter, with strict measures to ensure that only responsible, mature adults are able to buy it. It should also be made very clear the content of the game. I personally wouldn't buy a game with child molestation, but if mature adults want to play it for other reasons, then they should be allowed to play it. One thing isn't enough to judge a whole game by, and the game could have a very well-written story which ties the subject matter into it well. For example, the game's story may take place in a society where nothing is done to prevent human trafficking and child abuse, and be created as a way of raising more awareness of the issue.
Essentially what I'm saying is this: yes, it will be disturbing, but it could open people's eyes to the issue. I'll also point out Grand Theft Auto V, which gives you no choice but to take part in torturing a man on the orders of the FBI (or FIB, as they're called in-game). Yes, it's uncomfortable, but that's so you understand how horrible these things are when you realize that these things do exist in real life.
I disagree.
Yes it could be eye-opening, but on the flipside, it could also be feeding people with perverted desires, giving them ideas.
Plus why would any decent person want to play a game with such disgusting content?
Now I'm NOT saying you're like that, far from it.
But what I am saying is, when you weigh-out everything, the pro's and the con's, is it really a good idea?
When it comes to art, there is no limit.
The only limit that exists concerning art is what you like and what it invokes within you. If you do not like a peice of art, then do not concern yourself with it, but rather leave it for those who do appreciate it.