Fallout 3 - Impromptu Forum Q&A

[Prime Junta]

Not to be clever, but it's you. I said kids become immersed "with" boxes, not "in" boxes.

But is "immersed with" correct? It *sounds* incorrect to me. Perhaps someone who actually understands English grammar could chip in?

(FWIW, I Googled "immersed with" and "immersed in," and the former came up with about 42,000 hits, the first of which was "Ganesh idol immersed with great fanfare," while the latter had over three million. If that means anything.)

Shakespeare probably described this concept best in his prologue to Henry V. Knowing that his troupe was unable to represent what they were about to depict with any amount of realism at all, he called on his audience to suspend their disbelief. He encouraged them to imagine things like great army and navy battles.

I understand the concept and I agree. The difference in my reading is that IMO Pagliarulo's use of "immersion" makes it pretty clear that he means spatial immersion, not the narrative immersion Shakespeare was talking about.

That's why kids can become immersed by playing with boxes. They do what Shakespeare encouraged his audience to do, and they do it with nothing more than a box.

But, again, I believe we're talking about two different things.

For kicks, re-read Pagliarulo's comments, but mentally add a "spatial" before every "immersion." Does it read any differently? I think it does -- specifically, I think it makes a lot more sense; in particular, he says he was hooked by a variety of third-person games. This is contradictory, if you believe that he uses "immersion" in the broader sense: how could he become so engrossed with them if he believes that a first-person perspective is a prerequisite for it?

Therefore, I believe the qualifier is implicit. It's a pity nobody bothered to ask him whether he meant spatial immersion or immersion in general, though.

Edit: also read DArtagnan's comments on this thread, re Tetris and others. I for one have been completely "immersed" in Tetris, to the point that I've played an entire night of it. Yet DArtagnan specifically states that Tetris has no immersive properties. This statement only makes sense if he, too, is using "immersion" in the "spatial immersion" sense.

IOW, I believe this whole hoopla may be a misunderstanding about semantics -- Pagliarulo talking about spatial immersion, his opponents interpreting it as narrative immersion, or immersion in general.

 

[woges]

I believe that when most people hear immersed they mean "taken in by" in gaming they like to use it as suspension of disbelief. You have to make your own immersion.

 

[Squeek]

This conversation seems to have broken down a bit and now seems like work. Too bad we can't sit down and talk about it together. I'm sure it would be a lot more satisfying that way.

Anyway, I'm out of this thread. Enjoy.

 

[woges]

I think that, basically, a player chooses to be immersed in a game and that it can be for a whole number of reasons. I think that if you have chosen that a floating head is immersing than it probably always will be. It's been used with art for a very long time.

 

[DArtagnan]

@Prima Junta

I think you're right when you add "spatial" to immersion. It's definitely close to what I'm talking about.

I don't know if it's thorough enough, but having thought about it for a while, it REALLY is a matter of suspending disbelief to the point of believing oneself to actually be standing within the gameworld. That would be the ultimate level of immersion, and I think that's what Bethesda (and many others) are aiming for when they're using first person perspective.

However, I can appreciate that immersion can mean many things to many people, and it's most definitely possible to feel immersed in other ways. Semantics... They get us every time.

 

[woges]

Like the Art debate it's really hard to define this and immersion is directly related to art work/forms. You're trading with the creators reality for the sake of entertainment.

 

[Prime Junta]

This conversation seems to have broken down a bit and now seems like work. Too bad we can't sit down and talk about it together. I'm sure it would be a lot more satisfying that way.

As long as we hid all the sharp objects.

 

[Brother None]

He said that HE (and many on the team) prefers first person perspective and that HE wants to make THAT kind of game. That's why he's making Fallout 3 in that way, at least according to himself. He goes out of his way to underline that it's his way, and that it's right for him. He's not passing judgment on how games should be in general.

Considering that he's applying his philosophy on a franchise that has a different history, he is forcing his personal views on an audience that doesn't share those views. So you are right, but it's a moot point.

If there were another AAA developer out there who would reply to Emil's statements with a "hell no, man, that's not the only way to go about it", then right on, but there isn't, and as such Emil's individual opinion is a sign of the times, not just a sign of Bethesda's philosophy. I think that's the bigger problem. I have no issues with visceral immersion as used through first person view, none at all, but I'd appreciate it if "immersion" - with which this visceral immersion is always implied - wasn't the stated goal of every RPG out there.

You might be willing to live with that, but also realise the danger of the industry's tendency to be caught up by this kind of hype. "Next gen" just means better graphics, "immersion" just means using those better graphics in first person view, and "casual" is the new catchphrase for dumbing down games and removing complexity. Remember, before you fire off at me, that when Gas Powered's Chris Taylor goes "I'm removing numbers from my next hack 'n slash because people don't need that kind of brain-ache, it's not fun", all the media and other developers do is applaud his daring, innovative attitude. In that sense, third person view is just the first victim, and we're moving into the age of casual now. With heads held high and flags a waving.

Thank Frith for Europe. And indies.

 

[Asbjoern]

Considering that he's applying his philosophy on a franchise that has a different history, he is forcing his personal views on an audience that doesn't share those views. So you are right, but it's a moot point.

If there were another AAA developer out there who would reply to Emil's statements with a "hell no, man, that's not the only way to go about it", then right on, but there isn't, and as such Emil's individual opinion is a sign of the times, not just a sign of Bethesda's philosophy. I think that's the bigger problem. I have no issues with visceral immersion as used through first person view, none at all, but I'd appreciate it if "immersion" - with which this visceral immersion is always implied - wasn't the stated goal of every RPG out there.

I really believe you've misunderstood why Fallout 3 is being based around a first person view. It is not because of Pagliarulo's personal preferences or industry tendencies. It is pure and simple because Bethesda as a game company prefers first person. And whatever arguments Bethesda and Pagliarulo makes in order to rationalize their decision it is only a matter of them doing first person because they do first person, but as long as the game media (and you) asks that question as long is Bethesda going to have to come up with excuses, even though they often state the fact as it is.

In that sense, third person view is just the first victim, and we're moving into the age of casual now. With heads held high and flags a waving.

I think you're moving on dangrous ground if you believe first person view is a simplification of games. There's no definite connection between depth, complexity and third person view. Your reasoning becomes even more flawed when you mention Chris Taylor who is creating Space Siege in third person view.

EDIT: And if your postulate is that the use of first person isn't because of simplification but merely because it appeals to a broader audience and therefore a commercialization of games, which in your logic is just as bad as simplification, then have you ever considered the possibility that first person perspective is better than third person? That third person was a result of lacking technology? That the persons who prefer third person view are either obsessive Fallout fans or aged men who think the pinnacle of gaming was Ultima? (No harm intended with the use of these stereotypes and I'm not saying that is how the world is. I'm suggesting possibilities.)
Yes, games with third person view have their place, but you must accept the fact that in the future first person view will have the rightful place as the dominant view in games. Time has shifted. Just because I like artistic films, games etc. doesn't mean I want to impose that upon the genres in general. You can't expect something that appeals to a small audience to be dominant in a genre. Even though it perhaps is more intelligent and substantial.
Though contrary to popular belief in the Fallout community turn-based combat and isometric view is not more substantial than real-time combat and first person view.

 

[DArtagnan]

Considering that he's applying his philosophy on a franchise that has a different history, he is forcing his personal views on an audience that doesn't share those views. So you are right, but it's a moot point.

The history of a franchise is not directly related to the views of the audience. I don't see how you can draw such a conclusion based on your own personal adversion to the approach.

If there were another AAA developer out there who would reply to Emil's statements with a "hell no, man, that's not the only way to go about it", then right on, but there isn't, and as such Emil's individual opinion is a sign of the times, not just a sign of Bethesda's philosophy. I think that's the bigger problem. I have no issues with visceral immersion as used through first person view, none at all, but I'd appreciate it if "immersion" - with which this visceral immersion is always implied - wasn't the stated goal of every RPG out there.

I think you're being a little extreme, saying that all RPGs have that specific goal in mind. Lots of recent RPGs have different approaches, and something like WoW or The Witcher can't be said to prioritise visceral immersion above all else. I mean, WoW is clearly based in a cartoon fantasy land, and doesn't pretend to create a visceral immersion on the same level as, say, Oblivion.

The Witcher is focused more on a strong "mature" narrative, and I wouldn't say that visceral immersion is the ultimate goal of that game either.

Also, both games are played using a third person perspective. I don't have to look far for many other RPGs (or games in general) that don't have FPP.

All in all, I think you're letting your distaste for certain tendencies of the industry, a distaste that I share, cloud your vision.

Rarely are things black and white, and I think you would do well to cut developers a break once in a while, or at the very least stick to facts before you start pointing fingers.

You might be willing to live with that, but also realise the danger of the industry's tendency to be caught up by this kind of hype. "Next gen" just means better graphics, "immersion" just means using those better graphics in first person view, and "casual" is the new catchphrase for dumbing down games and removing complexity. Remember, before you fire off at me, that when Gas Powered's Chris Taylor goes "I'm removing numbers from my next hack 'n slash because people don't need that kind of brain-ache, it's not fun", all the media and other developers do is applaud his daring, innovative attitude. In that sense, third person view is just the first victim, and we're moving into the age of casual now. With heads held high and flags a waving.

The way I see it, this industry has been in decline for years already. We're not talking about a dangerous tendency here, we're talking about certainty. As time passes, we'll be seeing more and more dumbed down designs being regarded as intellectual masterpieces. Look at Bioshock for a perfect example, and it's only going to get worse.

We moved away from a nerdy "hardcore" hobby a long time ago. The mainstream has sniffed us out, and nothing we do will change that.

However, that lamentable fact is not going to confuse the issues for me. There's nothing inherently dumbed down about an immersive perspective, and because games in general ARE dumbed down (and have been for years) it doesn't necessarily correlate to their level of immersion.

 

[Brother None]

It is pure and simple because Bethesda as a game company prefers first person.

Yes, I know. What made you think I don't realise that?

But it does fit in a wider industry tendency. It's not "just" Bethesda.

I think you're moving on dangrous ground if you believe first person view is a simplification of games.

Man, why is it always so difficult for people not to put words in each other's mouths when arguing on this topic?

I never said first person view is a simplification of games, I said it's the first victim in a line of industry trends that also includes simplification of games. You can't artificially separate the two, because while you can easily make a deep first person RPG - why the hell not - the industry move towards first person and towards simplification are part of the same trend.

And if your postulate is that the use of first person isn't because of simplification but merely because it appeals to a broader audience and therefore a commercialization of games, which in your logic is just as bad as simplification, then have you ever considered the possibility that first person perspective is better than third person?

Considered it? Yes. Discarded it? Yes.

I've mentioned this many times before; in my view there is no superior viewpoint, just preference. I think I ranted at one point - here - against both the industry tendency to make everything FP/RT and the Codex reactionism towards TB/iso. You should instead consider simply what fits, who you're making the game for and in what trends the game should be. Use RT for more adventure-action like RPGs with more emphasis on player skill, why not? Use TB for more tactical gameplay especially in group-based RPGs (something I always found lacking in older RPGs), why not?

But don't claim one is inherently superior to the other and then proceed to claim it is ok to force your view on others. That makes you as bad as some of the industry bozos or some of the Codex bozos. Take your pick.

That the persons who prefer third person view are either obsessive Fallout fans or aged men who think the pinnacle of gaming was Ultima? (No harm intended with the use of these stereotypes)

Look, if you want to troll, just say so and I'll ignore you.

If you want a serious discussion then view my opinions on their own merit instead of trying to push me into some convenient stereotype that you have ready-made.

You can't expect something that appeals to a small audience to be dominant in a genre.

And just so we're clear, this is another straw man, and where did I claim I want my tastes to be dominant?

The history of a franchise is not directly related to the views of the audience. I don't see how you can draw such a conclusion based on your own personal adversion to the approach.

What? My own personal adversion would have nothing to do with it if I had any, but in fact I have no personal adversion towards first person in RPGs. You jump to the conclusion that I'm discussing my personal tastes (people always seem to do that by default). Please don't do that, I'm not.

The design philosophy of Fallout has been well-documented, and its approach to both combat and even view-points well explained (though the latter less). Visceral immersion was never a design approach of the franchise. You can argue that it should be - now - but you can't argue the fact that it has nothing to do with the history of the franchise, and only with what's hot now.

Lots of recent RPGs have different approaches, and something like WoW or The Witcher can't be said to prioritise visceral immersion above all else.

WoW is an MMORPG and even though there is an "RPG" in its name, MMORPGs are as far removed from single player Western RPGs as jRPGs, hack 'n slashes or RPG-esque adventure games.

I already mentioned "thank Frith for Europe". That'd be in reference to the Witcher, amongst others.

Rarely are things black and white, and I think you would do well to cut developers a break once in a while, or at the very least stick to facts before you start pointing fingers.

Wow.

Kettle much?

However, that lamentable fact is not going to confuse the issues for me. There's nothing inherently dumbed down about an immersive perspective, and because games in general ARE dumbed down (and have been for years) it doesn't necessarily correlate to their level of immersion.

Oh man, it's almost like...it's almost like...it's almost like I never claimed that!

I realise I'm going to piss people off by repeating this term so much, but are you guys trying to win a straw man award or something?

Again, you can try to separate facts as much as you want, but don't pretend I don't. I don't connect any inherent inferiority or superiority to either first person or third person, but why should that stop me from recognizing when two things are part of the same trend?

 

[DArtagnan]

What? My own personal adversion would have nothing to do with it if I had any, but in fact I have no personal adversion towards first person in RPGs. You jump to the conclusion that I'm discussing my personal tastes (people always seem to do that by default). Please don't do that, I'm not.

You say you have no adversion to it, and yet you reacted against it being called immersive.

You said that the audience doesn't share the views of the developer, which means you either know for a fact that Fallout players don't want first person perspective, or you're talking about your own personal perception or opinion.

I'm sure there are many Fallout fans that react the same way when they hear this about the perspective, but I'm equally convinced there are many who don't really mind it. I would be one of those.

If you have some information about the audience as a whole, then please share. If it turns out you're right, then I will retract my statement and acknowledge that the audience doesn't want FPP in Fallout 3.

WoW is an MMORPG and even though there is an "RPG" in its name, MMORPGs are as far removed from single player Western RPGs as jRPGs, hack 'n slashes or RPG-esque adventure games.

It's nice that you have an opinion about what specific genre we must be talking about, but I don't share it. We were talking about computer roleplaying games in general, as far as I know, and WoW is as much an example of that as any other.

If you insist that you were only talking about american singleplayer CRPGs, then how about Neverwinter Nights 2 and its expansion? It seems quite clear that the ultimate goal wasn't visceral immersion for Obsidian, now doesn't it.

Again, you can try to separate facts as much as you want, but don't pretend I don't. I don't connect any inherent inferiority or superiority to either first person or third person, but why should that stop me from recognizing when two things are part of the same trend?

You talk about a trend of dumbing down to satisfy the crowd, and you call the first person perspective approach part of this trend.

There are not many conclusions to be drawn from that, and I find it puzzling that you can't see this yourself.

Anyway, it's nice to see you can seperate facts and in effect, I trust you're open to the possibility that because Fallout 3 will have a first person perspective, it doesn't necessarily mean it's dumbed down or less immersive. A bit odd that you reacted that way if you can recognize this, but I guess weird things happen.

 

[Asbjoern]

Instead of disecting your post thoroughly, then if I'm able to interpret the essence of our current debate correctly (which I'm probably not according to you), then you see us reading your post as stating the opinion that third person is superior than first person.

If that isn't your stance then you definitely need to make your opinion clearer in your previous post.

If you want a serious discussion then view my opinions on their own merit instead of trying to push me into some convenient stereotype that you have ready-made.

I would just like to argue why I used the stereotypes. They weren't used as a way to label you personally. They weren't a personal attack. They were a general thought about, how or why some prefer third person instead of first person. They were a hypothesis not an absolute opinion. They weren't convenient, because I am aware of them being stereotypes, I am aware that they don't describe the real behavioral pattern but only refer to the pattern as a simple phenomenon. They are rigid (stereotypes tend to be (funnily)).
It is perhaps not a true hypothesis, but still...... it is worth considering. Have you considered it? And what would be your response?

I'm coming from a position where the only persons I've experienced arguing the superiority of an RPG purely based from a technical stand point have been Fallout fans and Ultima fans.

I'm too moving on dangerous grounds. But it is an odd observation.

I've mentioned this many times before; in my view there is no superior viewpoint, just preference. I think I ranted at one point - here - against both the industry tendency to make everything FP/RT and the Codex reactionism towards TB/iso. You should instead consider simply what fits, who you're making the game for and in what trends the game should be. Use RT for more adventure-action like RPGs with more emphasis on player skill, why not? Use TB for more tactical gameplay especially in group-based RPGs (something I always found lacking in older RPGs), why not?

I don't think it comes down to people either preferring player skill versus character skill (Am I interpreting your post wrong, again?). The only reason why I prefer first person is because of the level of detail and realism. Call it spatial immersion if you want. I want to simulate my own body, my own existence or some characters existence in a virtual world. Below are some questions I would like you to answer to see why somebody would not prefer spatial immersion (I can only see that it might be because one would want to distance the character from the player. Perhaps that one would want fun (a game of chess) instead of a narrative):

It seems to me that you consider FP/RT firmly linked and Iso/TB firmly linked? Why?
It seems to me that you consider FP/RT games more action based than Iso/TB? Why is that so? Why do write adventure-action and tactical gameplay? Why not adventure-action and tactical action? Is turn-based games per definition less action-based (and reversed)?

 

[Brother None]

If that isn't your stance then you definitely need to make your opinion clearer in your previous post.

Show me where I even implied I believe in an inherent superiority of 3rd person perspectives. At most I didn't say anything about it at all. So this is a conclusion you jumped to, don't blame me for that, and don't try to justify such rudeness, because that's weak. You don't see me jumping to the conclusion that you're a "console tard" just because you're defending first person view, are you? Than permit me the same courtesy.

I would just like to argue why I used the stereotypes.

I don't care. Sorry. I don't.

it is worth considering. Have you considered it?

Considered what?

I'm coming from a position where the only persons I've experienced arguing the superiority of an RPG purely based from a technical stand point have been Fallout fans and Ultima fans.

And I'm coming from the position where people wildly and unapologetically assume things about my opinions. Hey, look, you're doing the same.

I don't think it comes down to people either preferring player skill versus character skill (Am I interpreting your post wrong, again?).

No, I said that, but in references to RT combat, not to a perspective. Perspectives indeed have little to do with player versus character skill.

Below are some questions I would like you to answer to see why somebody would not prefer spatial immersion

Just so we're clear, I love games with spatial immersion too. But spatial immersion is just that, a tool. Why should all games have it? There are certain things you can do with right hemisphere immersion which you can't do with left hemisphere immersion, because the two don't overlap perfectly. You can never translate a book perfectly to a film because the former is right hemisphere and the latter left (well not really, but y'know).

Games, with their wonderful open and interactive nature, can explore both left and right freely, but not necessarily at the same time.

It seems to me that you consider FP/RT firmly linked and Iso/TB firmly linked? Why?

Because I also link RT with intuitive gameplay and TB with tactical gameplay, and first person view is linked to intuitive gameplay and bird's eye view with tactical gameplay. It's a matter of what complements each other best.

One of my favourite camera-workings in RPGs is Realms of Arkania. Despite being crippled by technical limitations, it uses first person view for exploring towns and dungeons, a map view for long-distance travel and isometric for combat. That's pretty ideal, for me, but that doesn't mean I'd like to see it applied to all games. Certainly not to - say - another TES game, because those have a tradition of first person view, or another Fallout game, because those have a tradition of bird's eye view. If I'm going to work with a franchise, I'd like to see my game make sense in the franchise's tradition.

It seems to me that you consider FP/RT games more action based than Iso/TB? Why is that so? Why do write adventure-action and tactical gameplay? Why not adventure-action and tactical action? Is turn-based games per definition less action-based (and reversed)?

Because that's the way I'd *like* to see it, not because that's the way it is. I mean, the way it is would be "all RPGs have RT", so any discussion about TB in mainstream RPGs is currently purely academic.

Ideally, an RPG with little but challenging fights in which you have to use all your resources and smarts to come out on top would have turn-based combat. It just makes sense. This'd be for an RPG with - say - 4 or 5 fights in the entire game. Kinda what PS:T could have been if not for all the dungeon crawling, or what Fallout is without special encounters (and rat caves).

But I personally hate games that have TB dungeon crawling and don't particularly like games that try to mix and overly large amount of tactics with RT gameplay (not many do this, but Birth of Shadows does, for example). I know some people dig it and that's fine, but it seems a bit counter-intuitive to me. If you're going to include a lot of combat against creatures significantly weaker than the PC, why not make combat more intuitive and faster rather than tactical and slow?

 

[Asbjoern]

Brother None. I will quote DArtagnan's argument to why he/she thought you considered third person superior. That was also the way I viewed your post.

You talk about a trend of dumbing down to satisfy the crowd, and you call the first person perspective approach part of this trend.

There are not many conclusions to be drawn from that, and I find it puzzling that you can't see this yourself.

And you've obviously also misunderstood my use of the stereotypes. As I wrote they weren't directed personally at you. I once considered you an obsessive Fallout fan, which I've stopped doing since we discussed NMA some time ago. It is clear that you've distanced yourself from that role and my stereotypes were solely directed to the Fallout community in general. That means my use of the stereotypes were open for interpretation, which your previous post also was.

EDIT: Let us get back on track.

 

[DArtagnan]

I'm getting too old for this kind of debate.

The e-wall makes impossible the already hard quest of getting someone to own up to a mistake, however slight it may have been.

I can appreciate the emotional bias against Fallout 3 and Bethsoft, even though my problem with the game, as I perceive it, is not based on raw emotion - mostly because I don't really care.

However, without the intention of being reasonable we'll get nowhere, and I have no patience for those who would rather be right than fair.

- D out

 

[Briosafreak]

That third person was a result of lacking technology?

Hmmm? Dagerfall, Arena, the Krondor series, Ultima Underground, etc, all predated the Fallout series, BG, NWN... So that does not compute.

Wow 56 comments, the good folks of RPGWatch should make more posts about Fallout 3, it's always a success.

 

[Brother None]

The e-wall makes impossible the already hard quest of getting someone to own up to a mistake, however slight it may have been.

What? Sorry, I missed your post.

You are right in saying I should have specified American RPGs and you're right in that it's not an absolute and I tend to overstate it (NWN 2 being an exception), but it's still a trend. Though over-the-shoulder seems as popular as first person. So yes, those were mistakes in my writing.

But I am insulted if you imply I'm being unreasonable while you're being the epitome of reasonable. Or the implication that my attitude towards Bethesda or Fallout 3 is an emotional one (you don't know me very well if you think it is). You insist on misinterpreting what I say and putting words in my mouth, to the point where it has nothing to do with me being unclear. For instance, when I read this:

You talk about a trend of dumbing down to satisfy the crowd, and you call the first person perspective approach part of this trend.

I think "learn to read".

I never said there was a trend of dumbing down to satisfy the crowd. I say simplification of mechanics and first person perspectives are part of one trend, not that first person perspective is part of a trend towards dumbing down.

The difference is that the latter implies first person is a catalyst or causation in dumbing down (something I never said but you insist on pretending I said), the former just implies that developer's motives in dumbing down and switching to first person are often the same, which in turns often means the two will be combined a lot in the direction gaming is moving into.

Here's what I find funny: you and Asbjoern both draw the wrong conclusion from my posts. Instead of asking me to clear it up and then giving me the time to, you both jump on my throat, fire stereotypes at me and stuff words in my mouth.

That's fine. This is the internet after all, but please don't act like that and then try and claim the moral high ground.

Wow 56 comments, the good folks of RPGWatch should make more posts about Fallout 3, it's always a success.

I'm very good for this forum's activity. 3 of my articles (BioShock review and 2 parts of the Glittering Gems editorials) are over or at 100 replies, and two others (Fallout 3 preview on NMA and this) are over 50.

I guess these guys just love me?

 

[KazikluBey]

Pagliarulo is clearly talking about spatial immersion

I can't say I agree that that is "clearly" and only the sort of immersion Pagliarulo is talking about. From that Wikipedia article you linked:

The term is also cited as a frequently-used buzzword, in which case its meaning is intentionally vague, but carries the connotation of being particularly engrossing.

I'd say Emil's use of the word might as well have come from Pete Hines - it's used in the typical buzz/PR speak way.

Also, I tried substituting every immersive/immersion in the NMA article with "spatial immersion", but that mostly seemed redundant since that would already be largely covered by the FPP he mentions - I'd say it's generally more difficult to imagine you're "there" in a top-down perspective. When I instead substituted immersive/immersion with engrossing/engrossment, it made more sense.

Oh, and for the record, I have had no trouble understanding BN's stance on this topic, and I find the way a few posters have continuously misunderstood and misrepresented him to be quite puzzling.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

If you two are having a problem with each other, maybe now would be a good time to take it to PM's ?