Guild Wars 2

http://www.pcgamer.com/guild-wars-2-heart-of-thorns-review/

Pretty well thought and insightful review, although I personally agree with it but might raise it to 90 but I still think it’s kind of early to judge before raid comes out, anyway ladies and gentlemen, PCgamers HoT review

wow, no one care about legit post?

We know good reviews are paid off.

Ravion Hawk.4736:

We know good reviews are paid off.

What are you talking about? That’s not a valid point.

warbignime.4610:

Ravion Hawk.4736:

We know good reviews are paid off.

What are you talking about? That’s not a valid point.

The HoT expansion introduced a lot of grind to the game. Personally I think this (eg mastery farming and the long track to unlock your elite spec) partly ruined the game for me…

I can guarantee you that soon there will be a lot of reviews with this exact feedback

Does that mean bad review are ‘paid off’ by competitors? Just wondering…

robertjan.2197:

warbignime.4610:

Ravion Hawk.4736:

We know good reviews are paid off.

What are you talking about? That’s not a valid point.

The HoT expansion introduced a lot of grind to the game. Personally I think this (eg mastery farming and the long track to unlock your elite spec) partly ruined the game for me…

I can guarantee you that soon there will be a lot of reviews with this exact feedback

No, because they are experienced and intelligent people that knows the difference between time consuming and grinding.

Nice example of grind: 16 hours of cof farm killing same mobs over and over.

Bad example of grind: leveling up mastery while doing variety of interesting and engaging events across four beautiful looking maps with amazing music.

When it comes to Gameinformer and PC Gamer, yes, good reviews go to companies that buy ads.

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

When it comes to Gameinformer and PC Gamer, yes, good reviews go to companies that buy ads.

Then why the score isn’t higher then? They could easily justify 90 or above.

Or better if you think the review is paid off tell me what you disagree with in this review.

Doesn’t mean this review isn’t biased.

Just sayin’.

Celtic Lady.3729:

Doesn’t mean this review isn’t biased.

Just sayin’.

Then what you disagree with?

It was a fairly decent article overall. There’s some bias, but it wasn’t totally fanboyish.

Can’t believe he wants to use a thief, though. Thief feels very underwhelming with HoT.

Celtic Lady.3729:

It was a fairly decent article overall. There’s some bias, but it wasn’t totally fanboyish.

Can’t believe he wants to use a thief, though. Thief feels very underwhelming with HoT.

It comes to personal preference, I am loving daredevil and find it’s the most fun spec to play in the game, animation look so cool and my character has that swift ans bursty feeling to it. Feels like a monk is what I’m saying.

Just go to meta critics.com for the overall hot rating. It’s like 75 or something.

drkmgic.9583:

Just go to meta critics.com for the overall hot rating. It’s like 75 or something.

Wasn’t that the one where a lot of people spammed zero ratings because they were mad about the 400 points for the elite? If so, that score was artificially dragged down and now is meaningless.

Well thought out review, and I agree with it a lot.

I am what you would call a “veteran”, I guess, having logged 1k hours since launch. Which I know is little compared to some, but I can still say I’ve played the game a lot. I didn’t think I’d enjoy HoT, I felt like what they were advertising didn’t sound like it’d interest me. But I was dead wrong, and I’ve loved my time in the jungle. PvP is still my main focus, but I’m finding myself being drawn to PvE now too, not least because it’s actually hard but fun to play. I finished my personal storyline and I’m looking forward to unlock more masteries.

I stopped reading that review when they wrote this

“I do like Guild Wars 2. According to the game, I’ve spent 728 hours playing it. 30 days”

How can you properly review a game for the masses that you have only looked at for 30 days, and given there is only 720 hours in 30 days, it further adds to the mystery, im guessing being AFK in LA for a month cannot really constitute playing.

Worse still, it’s not clear which masteries are required to unlock specific activities. I’m currently stalled in my personal story because I didn’t have the prerequisite mastery. It’s not prohibitively expensive, I just didn’t know I needed to have it.

This is partially wrong though. If you go through the Masteries list, you can see them having a little star next to the ones that are required for Story progression, and mousing over them even states which Mission it is for, e.g., the Itzel Poisoning one (at least used to) say something akin to Required: Mission 14 in the tooltip. This was not really explained anywhere however, so it’s forgivable to not notice it, but ArenaNet did actually put in pointers, so that you can spend some time to work towards specific ones, if your main goal is to go through the Story.

Perhaps they should add a little tutorial quote on that functionality of it, when you open the Masteries panel for the first time. Teach people how to figure out what they need in further Story chapters.

That said, they don’t say what are required for what Adventure, if considering that as an activity. Fair enough, could perhaps be a nice little change to have that on the tooltip of the map, when you mouse over one.

Ok I Did It.2854:

I stopped reading that review when they wrote this

“I do like Guild Wars 2. According to the game, I’ve spent 728 hours playing it. 30 days”

How can you properly review a game for the masses that you have only looked at for 30 days, and given there is only 720 hours in 30 days, it further adds to the mystery, im guessing being AFK in LA for a month cannot really constitute playing.

728 hours, is roughly 30 days. 720/24=30. I think you misunderstood it there. The reviewer can have played it since launch and experienced all the content ArenaNet has delivered just fine. Sure, I have over 5000 hours, so in comparison, 728 might seem short, but it’s still a respectable time to have spent in the game. But here, to help you perhaps understand the statement better; Over the course of 3 years, since launch, I have spent over 208 full days within the world of Guild Wars 2 (5000/24=208). And now.. I’m horrified. And Sad. Thanks for that <insert sad face here>.

warbignime.4610:

Pretty well thought and insightful review

This one more is more insightful:

http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/guild-wars-2-heart-of-thorns

Although I think the game deserves a somewhat lower score than what they gave it.

Test.8734:

warbignime.4610:

Pretty well thought and insightful review

This one more is more insightful:

http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/guild-wars-2-heart-of-thorns

Although I think the game deserves a somewhat lower score than what they gave it.

I think games should stop getting scores, or get something like “bananna/10” . . . numerical scores say nothing about a game and more people pay attention to “he gave it 4/5 stars” than what the author actually might write.

Reviews which try to boil down into a numerical scaled score are almost as useless as box quotes on DVDs. Why? Because a game has to be pretty specially terrible to merit anything lower than a 5 on a 10 point scale . . . which means it’s really a five point scale. And invariably then it starts becoming a matter of personal taste concerning the review as far as whether or not they liked the game as opposed to whether it was done well or not.

I’ll take reviews a la Shamus Young or Howard Taylor over PCGamer or such.

For those complaining about ‘bias’, this is what a (mostly) unbiased review looks like (there’s actually a very slight positive bias throughout). Literally any piece of writing that seeks to convey an opinion is going to be ‘biased’.

It seems like the standard principles of judging review quality are being applied here: if you agree with a review, it must be good; and if you don’t agree with a review, clearly it’s bad and must have been paid for by someone with an agenda.

As always, this is bullkitten. People have different tastes and different priorities. Some people will like Heart of Thorns, some people won’t. I’m perfectly happy to get a strictly quality over quantity deal, and I knew ahead of time that that was what was being offered.

Test.8734:

warbignime.4610:

Pretty well thought and insightful review

This one more is more insightful:

http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/guild-wars-2-heart-of-thorns

Although I think the game deserves a somewhat lower score than what they gave it.

Yes and pigs fly.
Don’t make us laugh, a review from a guy who wrote:
" Aging engine has surprisingly poor performance"
AGING?
“Group-focused content in an anti-social game.”
ANTI Social Game ?
“I have an 80 Engineer and 80 Revenant. I’ve spent plenty time in this game.”
Wow 1 class in 3 years before HOT.
Rofl.

Rienrodrys.7493:

Don’t make us laugh, a review from a guy who wrote:
" Aging engine has surprisingly poor performance"
AGING?

The GW2 engine is about as old as World of Warcraft’s. It’s seen development since then, but so has WoW’s, and WoW’s might even have seen more. And it’s not particularly toaster-friendly, especially not in Verdant Brink.

“Group-focused content in an anti-social game.”
ANTI Social Game ?

This guy’s main MMO is FFXI, which has forced interdependency from pretty much the word ‘go’, as well as a ridiculously deep combo system.

“I have an 80 Engineer and 80 Revenant. I’ve spent plenty time in this game.”
Wow 1 class in 3 years before HOT.
Rofl.

Very few people spend several hundred hours playing MMOs that they don’t like.

I really do not agree with the review, and I think this is the view of someone that has just quickly reviewed the game but is not really actively playing it;

Things I do NOT agree with:
- Group-focused content in an anti-social game (Really??!, I really have an entirely different experience, I have played this game for 3 years… have you ever heard of lfg ?)
- Mastery and Elite Specialization systems are unsuccessful (While they are maybe not what you expected of them, that does not make them unsuccessful)
- Aging engine has surprisingly poor performance (I am using a GTX 970 and I am always around my locked 60 fps on max settings on 1440p so please update your drivers or look somewhere else before you dish the entire game engine.)
- Unexciting combat design has remained unchanged (I ’m getting the feeling that u mainly use 1 while your other hand is in the snack bag?)

Things I do somewhat agree with:
- Low quantity of new items (I play on high settings, still there are many textures that just look plain VGA)
- New Revenant job adds more options, but doesn’t stand out (I created one and played it for a while, I do like it but had kind of the same feeling.)

Thing that I do agree with:
- An interesting story with memorable battles
- The glider is a joy to use
- Guild Halls and Stronghold are fantastic additions
- Lots of new content for returning players

Ravion Hawk.4736:

We know good reviews are paid off.

If he was paid off, he must not have been paid that much. he gave it an 85 as of one week past release date. I’d think if he was working for Anet it would at least be in the low 90’s.

Test.8734:

warbignime.4610:

Pretty well thought and insightful review

This one more is more insightful:

http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/guild-wars-2-heart-of-thorns

Although I think the game deserves a somewhat lower score than what they gave it.

Incredibly trashy review, this isn’t someone who played GW2 at all.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

drkmgic.9583:

Just go to meta critics.com for the overall hot rating. It’s like 75 or something.

Wasn’t that the one where a lot of people spammed zero ratings because they were mad about the 400 points for the elite? If so, that score was artificially dragged down and now is meaningless.

First people who were kittened over elite cost went and gave 0’s, then people who thought elites were fine went there and gave it 10’s. The meta critic review is pretty funny because it’s just an extension of an internal battle that was being fought, and very little to do with a balanced review.

Rienrodrys.7493:

Test.8734:

warbignime.4610:

Pretty well thought and insightful review

This one more is more insightful:

http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/guild-wars-2-heart-of-thorns

Although I think the game deserves a somewhat lower score than what they gave it.

Yes and pigs fly.
Don’t make us laugh, a review from a guy who wrote:
" Aging engine has surprisingly poor performance"
AGING?
“Group-focused content in an anti-social game.”
ANTI Social Game ?
“I have an 80 Engineer and 80 Revenant. I’ve spent plenty time in this game.”
Wow 1 class in 3 years before HOT.
Rofl.

Useless trash post by a wannabe hardcore gamer. Yay… Not everyone likes to twink or wants to play the game every free minute of their freetime (just to “brag” about the thousands of hours /played?)

I think he touches on a really, really good point in the review. The vanilla game had a problem of spacing progression out too much while not offering enough of it. I think this is why a lot of people grew bored and stopped playing after reaching the level cap.

The mastery system in HoT is a great way of alleviating that. You always feel like you’re making tangible progress toward something, which is something the vanilla game lacked and is critical to retaining players.

I think the review is pretty spot on.

Sykper.6583:

Incredibly trashy review, this isn’t someone who played GW2 at all.

Incredibly trashy review of the review, this isn’t someone who has read the review at all.

Test.8734:

This one more is more insightful:

http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/guild-wars-2-heart-of-thorns

“Perhaps the greatest shortcoming of Heart of Thorns is its entire focus on new content rather than investing in improving the foundation of the game.”

First he makes it sound like it’s a bad thing when an expansion focuses on new content, and then he says the game didn’t improve its foundation which is just plain wrong.

“The latest and greatest GPUs can limp along in the 30fps range in most environments even when settings are toned down.”

no comment necessary.

“In-fact, most of the Heart of Thorns experience is designed to be completed in a group, which doesn’t work well given Guild Wars 2’s anti-social atmosphere.”

hilarious

“and the ability design has you spend most of your time auto-attacking while waiting patiently for the right moment to follow up with AoE, defensive abilities, and conditions.”

here he shows that he clearly didn’t play the game. I play necro and engineer and my auto-attack is easily the least used ability. (except for Ability 1 in reaper shroud).

How is this game anti-social? mobs, loot, chests, even resource nodes are all shared. There’s no tagging mobs or stealing nodes from other players. You’re not forced to group with people, you can just run in and start hitting things and get the same rewards.

What am I missing?

Test.8734:

Incredibly trashy review of the review, this isn’t someone who has read the review at all.

The only reason you dislike the PC Gamer view is that it challenges your pre-existing stance, and the only reason you like the Gamer Revolution one is that it doesn’t.

Ok I Did It.2854:

How can you properly review a game for the masses that you have only looked at for 30 days, and given there is only 720 hours in 30 days, it further adds to the mystery, im guessing being AFK in LA for a month cannot really constitute playing.

Even if he had only started playing GW2 a month ago, that would easily give him enough playtime to have useful comments to make about the game. But he’s saying that he’s spent the equivalent of a whole month of his life in-game, not that he has only been playing for a month.

Eh, I read it out of curiosity. There isn’t a lot of “reviewing” in there. Seems like he describes new features from a clinical standpoint more than he actually gives an opinion on them.

Celtic Lady.3729:

It was a fairly decent article overall. There’s some bias, but it wasn’t totally fanboyish.

Can’t believe he wants to use a thief, though. Thief feels very underwhelming with HoT.

Thief felt underwhelming to me since the trait patch a while back. I stopped playing mine.

Straylight.7529:

“Perhaps the greatest shortcoming of Heart of Thorns is its entire focus on new content rather than investing in improving the foundation of the game.”

First he makes it sound like it’s a bad thing when an expansion focuses on new content, and then he says the game didn’t improve its foundation which is just plain wrong.

It’s only “wrong” in that he could have added how HoT actually made the core game worse, by being followed by a nerf to dungeon drops and the addition of a mastery gate to Fractals. But saying that HoT doesn’t improve GW2’s foundation is factually correct.

Straylight.7529:

no comment necessary.

You don’t make any comment mostly because you can’t – or are you going to say that the GW2’s engine, which is basically an iteration of the 2004 engine, is not old by PC games’ standards?

Straylight.7529:

“and the ability design has you spend most of your time auto-attacking while waiting patiently for the right moment to follow up with AoE, defensive abilities, and conditions.”

here he shows that he clearly didn’t play the game. I play necro and engineer and my auto-attack is easily the least used ability. (except for Ability 1 in reaper shroud).

I’m trying to think what’s funnier: to imagine you standing there doing absolutely nothing while your skills recharge, or someone actually trying to defend the notion that the skill without a recharge is actually the least used one.

The reviewer isn’t wrong; it sounds more like a L2P issue.

evilunderling.9265:

The only reason you dislike the PC Gamer view is that it challenges your pre-existing stance, and the only reason you like the Gamer Revolution one is that it doesn’t.

Are you saying that the OP here is any different? Or anyone else posting in this topic?

Do you want to see something funny? Take a look at the post history of anyone in this topic. Do you really expect to see anyone attacking the review that agrees with that user’s previous point of view?

Phy.2913:

How is this game anti-social? mobs, loot, chests, even resource nodes are all shared. There’s no tagging mobs or stealing nodes from other players. You’re not forced to group with people, you can just run in and start hitting things and get the same rewards.

What am I missing?

If I had to guess, it’s because you don’t need people… or grouping. There’s very few reasons to join a guild and actually interact with people beyond “I need bodies to do this event.”

I’m pretty anti-social in GW2, but that’s because I’ve had too many poor experiences with people in this game, and it left me super jaded.

I stopped caring about so called professional game reviewers back in the mid 90’s
For all we know this guy never even played gw2 core game and is not even a fan of mmorpgs or is a huge fanboy to them all .. we just don’t no .. i rather see facts like all the gating and watch you tube videos do decide for my self ..

so far it’s a huge no to this expansion

Test.8734:

You don’t make any comment mostly because you can’t – or are you going to say that the GW2’s engine, which is basically an iteration of the 2004 engine, is not old by PC games’ standards?

Don’t change the subject. My “no comment necessary” refered to this line:
“The latest and greatest GPUs can limp along in the 30fps range in most environments even when settings are toned down.”

..which is simply wrong. No discussion needed.

Test.8734:

I’m trying to think what’s funnier: to imagine you standing there doing absolutely nothing while your skills recharge, or someone actually trying to defend the notion that the skill without a recharge is actually the least used one.

The reviewer isn’t wrong; it sounds more like a L2P issue.

Again, this line in the review you linked is simply wrong:

“and the ability design has you spend most of your time auto-attacking while waiting patiently for the right moment to follow up with AoE, defensive abilities, and conditions.”

No matter what profession you play, you’ll not spend most of your time auto attacking.
As a necro I have 15 active abilities on my ability bar. In order to make the above statement correct I’d have to use it more than 50% of the time which is simply not the case! Checkmate.

Test.8734:

Do you want to see something funny? Take a look at the post history of anyone in this topic. Do you really expect to see anyone attacking the review that agrees with that user’s previous point of view?

Maybe you should have a look at your own post history

Coyote.7031:

Phy.2913:

How is this game anti-social? mobs, loot, chests, even resource nodes are all shared. There’s no tagging mobs or stealing nodes from other players. You’re not forced to group with people, you can just run in and start hitting things and get the same rewards.

What am I missing?

If I had to guess, it’s because you don’t need people… or grouping. There’s very few reasons to join a guild and actually interact with people beyond “I need bodies to do this event.”

I’m pretty anti-social in GW2, but that’s because I’ve had too many poor experiences with people in this game, and it left me super jaded.

Having the ability to be anti-social doesn’t make the game anti-social. If anything, it’s more social than traditional MMO’s because you aren’t fighting over resources/enemies.

Straylight.7529:

No matter what profession you play, you’ll not spend most of your time auto attacking.

I kind of do using Ricochet, because it does a lot of what I want it to do – multiple target damage and tags up to three targets for me. Also if it’s only two targets it hits one of them twice. Add in the boon it gives me, and that with proper traits it can start off some conditions . . .

Not every auto-attack is created equal. Sometimes it is a legitimately useful thing to let run.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Straylight.7529:

No matter what profession you play, you’ll not spend most of your time auto attacking.

I kind of do using Ricochet, because it does a lot of what I want it to do – multiple target damage and tags up to three targets for me. Also if it’s only two targets it hits one of them twice. Add in the boon it gives me, and that with proper traits it can start off some conditions . . .

Not every auto-attack is created equal. Sometimes it is a legitimately useful thing to let run.

But you made a conscious choice to do that. However, according to the review GW2 is designed to “have you spend most of your time auto-attacking” and that is simply not true. It is clear that the reviewer did not play GW2.

Besides, the chained auto-attacks from Guild Wars 2 are far more interesting than those of other MMO’s.

GW2 original philosophy was leveling should be easy because a lot of people race to max anyway so they would make it easier to do this. Because of that I have about nine max characters that I enjoy playing, where in other games I seldom reach max and leave.

HoT departs from this and seems more like Skyforge and it’s gated for grinding content. I’m happy they lowered the hero points because by the time I got my elite done I had nearly finished all the content which I believe the content was meant to be done as an elite. It also looks like gear grind creeping in.

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

When it comes to Gameinformer and PC Gamer, yes, good reviews go to companies that buy ads.

Right which is why colonial marines had a perfect score when ads were plastered all over their websites right?

No not really lmao.

(those of you tuning into that subject, it got a pretty bad score despite having a complete front page ad buyout for that game)

warbignime.4610:

Bad example of grind: leveling up mastery while doing variety of interesting and engaging events across four beautiful looking maps with amazing music.

How many non-sequitir fallacies can you fit in to one sentence? Or how many personal opinions for that matter. Does that make it a grind if they don’t find the events interesting and engaging? Does it make it a grind if they don’t think the maps are beautiful? Does it make it a grind if they don’t like the music or even play with it off?

Plus, even the one single argument related to the topic is false. You don’t get to do the events in four maps, or else no one would be complaining about arbitrary gating of map content.

You get to explore a relatively tiny part of one map, being gated behind some mastery from the remainder of the map. You then have to farm events in that tiny portion of the map, and in no section of the map is there enough events that you will not have to repeat one or all of them many many times, until you finally get the mastery necessary to overcome the gate. At which point it opens to another area, where you hit another mastery wall to overcome, now, by farming events from both areas. And it’s only after you’ve repeated this process who knows how many bleeding times that you actually even have four maps.

I like the idea behind what ANet meant to do with this expansion, creating a progression system in an MMO more like Metroid, or Zelda, Castlevania, or many other adventure games. In fact it sounds amazing and I wait for the day when someone actually pulls it off, because ANet, didn’t. Those games feel great because when you hit those walls, they require you to explore, work, and discover and overcome unique challenges until you find or earn that one thing you are looking for that gets you past the wall. They do not require you to go back, and repeat the content you have already done, over and over and over again, to fill an arbitrarily chosen bar to get past the wall. Masteries are great, hear they are challenging and I love that. But the XP grind behind them, is a hang on from archaic MMO systems that ANet really had no logical reason to keep, but did, and I can’t imagine for any reason but fear that minmaxers would blow through the content and complain.

Conncept.7638:

warbignime.4610:

Bad example of grind: leveling up mastery while doing variety of interesting and engaging events across four beautiful looking maps with amazing music.

How many non-sequitir fallacies can you fit in to one sentence? Or how many personal opinions for that matter. Does that make it a grind if they don’t find the events interesting and engaging? Does it make it a grind if they don’t think the maps are beautiful? Does it make it a grind if they don’t like the music or even play with it off?

Plus, even the one single argument related to the topic is false. You don’t get to do the events in four maps, or else no one would be complaining about arbitrary gating of map content.

You get to explore a relatively tiny part of one map, being gated behind some mastery from the remainder of the map. You then have to farm events in that tiny portion of the map, and in no section of the map is there enough events that you will not have to repeat one or all of them many many times, until you finally get the mastery necessary to overcome the gate. At which point it opens to another area, where you hit another mastery wall to overcome, now, by farming events from both areas. And it’s only after you’ve repeated this process who knows how many bleeding times that you actually even have four maps.

I like the idea behind what ANet meant to do with this expansion, creating a progression system in an MMO more like Metroid, or Zelda, Castlevania, or many other adventure games. In fact it sounds amazing and I wait for the day when someone actually pulls it off, because ANet, didn’t. Those games feel great because when you hit those walls, they require you to explore, work, and discover and overcome unique challenges until you find or earn that one thing you are looking for that gets you past the wall. They do not require you to go back, and repeat the content you have already done, over and over and over again, to fill an arbitrarily chosen bar to get past the wall. Masteries are great, hear they are challenging and I love that. But the XP grind behind them, is a hang on from archaic MMO systems that ANet really had no logical reason to keep, but did, and I can’t imagine for any reason but fear that minmaxers would blow through the content and complain.

If that’s your argument then you might as well say that to everythimg, what if they don’t like games, what if they don’t like pve. That’s not an issue, of pve content doesn’t cater to you then why are you in pve anyway.

We only get to explore tiny part of the maps is straight up false, you get access to at least 80% of the map with just basic gliding and mushroom, you would have an valid points if they doesn’t take less than AN HOUR to unlock.

Just realize the OP posted the link to troll anyone who disagreed and stop feeding it.

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

Just realize the OP posted the link to troll anyone who disagreed and stop feeding it.

Yes because anyone who disagree with you is a troll?

I did enjoy the second review posted, although, again some bias seems to be in place. Taking the 2 articles together, I think an accurate review is somewhere in the middle of both.

Unusually for an MMO expansion, Heart of Thorns doesn’t raise the level cap. It doesn’t add any new tiers of gear, either. If you were level 80 before the expansion, you’re still at the maximum level now. If you were fully kitted out in ascended armour before the expansion, you’ve still got the best equipment now.

, i.e., best thing about Guild Wars 2. Right now game is just one thing – Perfect – with right amount of hard and solo content. To make things better, ANET gives you the opportunity to come together to make maps more challenging to reap better rewards from your efforts. This is not science, it’s art. It takes time, iterations and a lot of passion to make it good. I had expected the xpac would lead to an enormous grind and posted here after reading about masteries, hero points and legendary weapon related stuff. ANET made good on almost everything within a week. For me this game gets 10/10 right now.