Previous month:
March 2008
Next month:
May 2008

Spikes & Trolls

The Top 10 Videogame Emotions post seemed to be popular; I got a trackback from both Kotaku and Gaming News (thanks for the exposure, mysterious benefactors!) and the SiteMeter visits went up from the usual mean of 300 a day to a more vertiginous 1,600 a day. Meanwhile, we have a weird troll visiting... I always try and get the people who come here to engage in discussion, no matter what their perspective, so I'm really not sure what to do in the cases of people who aren't willing to have an informed debate, but don't leave either. Is ignoring trolls the only option?

A few thoughts about games I'm playing.

  • My friend and co-worker Neil gave me a link to David Scott's latest tower defence game, Vector TD. It's a strategic-efficiency game, with a logistical structure - and thus like gaming crack to an game player such as myself. Fortunately, now I've completed the easier maps, the game has become too repetitive to continue - at least, I hope this is the case!
  • Vector TD is actually not a million miles from my old Art of War game concept (a wholly strategic game about military defence) - wish I had a means to put that into production. How much does a flash programmer cost for a small game project, I wonder...
  • My wife and I have nearly completed Super Mario Galaxy. In fact, we could go and fight the final battle whenever we like now, but we're going through and pulling in a few more stars. I always felt the game was riding close to the edge of frustration, but it hasn't tipped over into it much so far, thankfully.
  • Is there a reason to get a PS3 yet? I feel the need to get a power console at some point, but the 360 turns me off for a number of reasons (Ring of Death, Achievements...) I could still go either way on this decision.
  • I have exciting news about a certain RPG project that has been in pre-dev for many years now, but I can't share it just yet...

Have a great week everyone!

Naturalistic Astrology?

Astrology_planet_chart Why is there no naturalistic description of astrology, that is, a description of astrology in terms of scientific materialism? Is it because there is a prior assumption that all aspects of this field can be dismissed on the grounds that the mechanism used to explain astrology does not fit with current scientific paradigms? But what if there were things being described by astrological systems that were compatible with modern scientific thought? What if there were something under the hood of the social phenomena of astrology that warranted investigation?

The prevailing tone of the modern scientific community is essentially combative - ideas gain credence by surviving the remorseless attacks of their opponents in journals, conferences or in the news. Certain systems - including but in no way restricted to astrology - seem to be excluded from consideration simply because the force of opposition would be too great. But shouldn't all matters be legitimate subjects for experimentation, research and theory formation?

I can see at least two elements of astrology which might warrant a scientific treatment (by which I do not mean a pugnacious sceptical dismissal - there are no shortage of these!)

Firstly, astrology as a noise system; a means for individuals to influence their actions without recourse to logic and sense; people with a more poetic bent might even say a chance to commune with fate. There are a variety of these noise systems in common use throughout the world - the I Ching, for instance, or tarot readings - and it seems clear even from a casual examination that there are genuine psychological processes being harnessed by these devices. It is insufficient to dismiss them simply because they are presented in a fanciful metaphysical wrapper: allowing noise to influence one's cogitations becomes meaningful. It seems to me that there is something worth investigating here (although it would take the dedicated agnosticism of a scholar of comparative religion to conduct a reasonable inquiry).

Secondly, why has no-one investigated the inherent claim of astrology that the time of year that one is born can affect one's personality? This is far from a fanciful claim (although the usual justifications provided by astrologers will struggle to fit a naturalistic perspective, of course). Consider that plants, for instance, grow into very different forms according to the temperature, light, altitude and other factors of their life history, and some reptiles such as crocodiles produce different gender offspring according to the temperature of incubation. It is certainly possible that similar factors might apply in human growth, and even if there were no biological basis, it could still have a psychological reality - a person could develop markedly different perspectives according to whether their birthday was in the Summer or the Winter, for instance. It is not impossible that a Capricorn (whose birthday celebration occurs in darker, colder months) might have measurable psychological differences from a Taurus (whose birthday is in warmer, brighter months), but no-one to my knowledge has actually checked.

The scientific community rarely if ever investigates such things because firstly, there's no funding for it, and secondly, scientists often fear their credibility would be harmed by investigating something which by enforced consensus is excluded from rational consideration. It is this unwillingness to explore all the avenues of exploration available to us - the myopic capacity for prior assumptions to weigh more heavily than direct observation - that leaves me highly sceptical of any claim that our modern scientific knowledge is even a remotely complete description of the universe.

Astrology is an integral part of modern culture, a symbolic language which is used by its practitioners to communicate abstract ideas about identity and behaviour (whatever the questionable nature of the foundations of that language), and a noise system which people use to disrupt their routines and create strange attractors in their lives. That it is usually presented in fanciful, superstitious terms should have no bearing on whether or not it qualifies as a subject for scientific investigation. The fact that anything might not qualify for unprejudiced examination should perhaps make us seriously question how we currently conduct science.

Moorcock's Metaphysics (1): Michael Moorcock

Moorcockphoto_a My grandmother bought me my first paperback by Michael Moorcock back in 1982, knowing that I had a penchant for fantasy stories. It was the Knight of the Swords, the first of the Corum novels, and I devoured it voraciously in just a few hours – hungry for more. Over the years, I was eventually to read essentially everything that Mr. Moorcock has written, and my bookcases contain three shelves of his work, much of it dog eared and well thumbed. To be honest, I don’t think my nan would have appreciated much of what Moorcock writes about, but she was delighted to have found a present I enjoyed, and continued to bring me Moorcock novels from time to time over the years.

Moorcock’s work occupies a strange place in the literary world. Most famous (and commercially successful) for his fantasy novels, in particular the Elric series, he has also achieved substantial acclaim for literary works such as Mother London (which was shortlisted for the Whitbread Prize) and the Between the Wars sequence, in which a self-deluded narrator provides a uniquely fantastical account of the two world wars. He won the Nebula award for best novella in 1967 for his atheist fantasy Behold the Man, in which a time traveller finds himself taking the role of Jesus (which most Christians will find highly offensive), and the World Fantasy Award for best novel in 1979 for Gloriana, his sumptuous tribute to Mervyn Peake’s Gormenghast trilogy, not to mention dozens of other accolades including five lifetime achievement awards.

There is no doubt that Moorcock has had a prolific output. Many of his dozens of fantasy novels were written during his time as editor of the influential science fiction “New Wave” magazine New Worlds, between 1964 and 1971. In fact, a substantial number of these books were written to pay the bills while striving to keep the magazine going – Mike claims that he asked his publishers what the shortest manuscript they would accept would be, then wrote books to that length, often in as little as three days. “It shows!” I joked, when asking him about this at a book reading in Manchester several years ago.

Unusually, while the individual collections of stories follow different protagonists – such as the aforementioned Elric, and the cult antihero Jerry Cornelius who achieved considerable literary fame in the late sixties and seventies – they also form elements of a wider whole, which can only be appreciated by reading the greater part of the Moorcock canon. This wider framework – which can be collectively referred to as the Eternal Champion mythology – has its own metaphysical themes.

The metaphysics of Moorcock’s writing, however, are not concerned with spiritual or religious matters, but rather ethical (and hence political) themes. Moorcock believes morality and story structure are closely linked, and that the moral of a story is implicit in its structure; his work thus explores a variety of moral themes by using a variety of different structures. Although many of his stories are tales of wizardry and wild romance, the thematic content concerns more existential matters, and in particular questions about conflict, imperialism, and human nature. Although early attempts to explore these kinds of issues in a metaphorical manner were less than successful (Moorcock criticises his own early novel, The Golden Barge, as being clumsily rendered, for instance), as his writing has matured, so have the metaphors and metaphysics within his stories.

In this serial, we’ll look at some of the key elements of Moorcock’s metaphysics, including the idea of Law and Chaos made famous by the tabletop role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons (which owes its roots to Moorcock’s writing), the infinitely varied planes of the Multiverse, and the central motif of the Eternal Champion within which the entire Moorcock milieu can (with exceptions) be interpreted.

Next week: Law and Chaos

Top Ten Videogame Emotions

Emotions_small What are the most popular emotions of play in videogames?

Based on the 1,040 responses to the DGD2 survey, I have ranked the top 10 emotions with their average score out of 5 to get a rough-and-ready estimate of the popularity of various emotions. This isn’t a strict scientific measure, as such, but the highest scoring emotions are those for which the majority of people not only recognised having that emotion while playing games, but recognised it enhanced their enjoyment.

(For reference, the top answer that could be given in each case was “Yes, [I recognise this emotion in my play] and I seek out games that give me this feeling” and the next highest was “Yes [I recognise this emotion in my play] and it enhances my enjoyment of a game”. The bottom answer in each case was “No, I never feel this way when playing games.”)

I have included my hypothetical deductions concerning the underlying neuro-biological mechanisms where I have some idea of what is involved.


10. Bliss (3.26)

At the bottom of our Top 10, the feeling of utter joyfulness, which is probably the experience of highly elevated levels of the neurotransmitter seratonin. While 27.7% of respondents said no videogame had given them this feeling, 59.9% of people gave this emotion one of the top two responses (with 22.1% actively seeking out games which give them this feeling). I’m actually quite doubtful that so many people have experienced bliss in the sense intended by emotions-expert Paul Ekman (although a study could easily determine this), and I find it more likely that people are taking the description “utter joy and bliss” to mean fiero (the emotion of triumph over adversity), which we will come to below.


9. Relief (3.28)

Relief, which may be the experiential analogue of the hormone cortisol, has already been acknowledged as an important emotion of play (as we discussed before in the piece on rushgames). Despite this, 21.5% of respondents said no videogame had ever given them this feeling. However, 43% said it enhanced their enjoyment of games, and 14.4% said they sought out games that gave them this feeling.


8. Naches (3.57)

Here’s a curious one – the emotion of pride in the accomplishments of one’s students or children, referred to by emotion researcher Ekman by the Yiddish term naches. Players seem to really enjoy training their friends and family to play games, with a whopping 53.4% saying it enhances their enjoyment, and another 12.9% saying they seek out games that give them this feeling. (I don’t have the data yet, but I wonder if such people play mostly MMORPGs?) Only 10.9% had never had the experience in the context of videogames. Perhaps, as Katherine Isbister has suggested, more videogames should include a co-operative Tutor mode?


7. Surprise (3.59)

Another emotion we’ve seen in the context of rushgames, surprise is closely related to fear and thus probably relates to the hormone and neurotransmitter epinephrine (adrenalin). Few people (8.1%) had never been surprised by videogames, while more than half the respondants (51.9%) said it added to their enjoyment, and another 14.4% saying they sought out games that gave them this experience.


6. Fiero (3.89)

Yes, arguably the most prominent of the videogame emotions, fiero (the feeling of triumph over adversity – probably a cocktail of norepinephrine, epinephrine, and dopamine) didn’t even make it half way up the top ten! It wasn’t because it wasn’t highly rated – in fact about three quarters of respondants (77.1%) gave it the top two marks, with about a third (32.7%) saying they seek out games that give them this feeling. Still, there were five other emotions that scored more highly, and three other emotions which scored higher in terms of players actively seeking out the feeling...


5. Curiosity (3.92)

I wasn’t surprised to see curiosity in the Top Five, but to see it edge out fiero was unexpected! Curiosity, which is an expression of what some psychologists refer to as interest (and could be seen as a behaviour rather than an emotion) seems to relate to the beta-endorphin neurotransmitter, which is involved in a mechanism encouraging animals to explore and seek new stimulus. Nicole Lazzaro was the first person to relate it to videogame play, and with good cause! It pulled in big numbers, with once again about three quarters rating it highly (78.8%) and of these about a quarter (24.3%) seeking out games that give them this feeling. Just 5.4% had never had the experience in videogames.


4. Excitement (4.02)

Well no surprise to see this one near the top! Excitement, as discussed previously, is an expression of epinephrine (adrenalin), and an extremely common experience – just 2.7% of respondents claimed they had never experienced it in the context of videogames. 8 out of 10 people (82.1%) gave it one of the top two responses, with about a quarter (26.3%) actively seeking it out. This emotion also produced the highest incidence of the second-to-highest response (55.8%) in the survey, that is, a strict majority of players recognise excitement as a major contribution to their enjoyment of play.


3. Wonderment (4.07)

Another expression of the interest mechanism mentioned under curiosity, wonderment is probably also related to beta-endorphin. Here, the feeling is more intense – and it seems players respond to the greater intensity. Whilst a larger number of people could not relate the experience to their play (8.1% had no experience of it in videogames), 41.5% said it enhanced their enjoyment and an additional 41.2% (for a total of 82.7%) said they sought out games that gave them this feeling. In fact, of all the emotions studied in this survey, this was the highest scorer in terms of respondents actively seeking it out, as even the top 2 emotions did not clear 40% in seeking out the emotion. It seems amazing players is one of the most effective techniques videogames can muster.


2. Contentment (4.09)

I said before the survey began that I suspected that the research community had underestimated the importance of contentment to videogames, and although this crude ranking is far from definitive, it does seem I was correct! 82.7% gave this emotion one of the top two marks, with 38.2% seeking out games that would give them a sense of contentment. Like bliss, this probably connects to serotonin, but whereas more than a quarter of players had no experience of bliss to draw upon, just 5.8% could find no memory of contentment in their play.


1. Amusement (4.28)

But head and shoulders above every other emotion in the survey was amusement (for which I have no biological mechanism, although psychologists link it to the resolution of inconsistencies, and it will involve an endorphin of some kind as well as the pre-frontal cortex). The fewest number of people responded that they had no experience of amusement in videogames (just 1.7%) while a whopping 92.6% gave this emotion one of the top two responses, and 39.7% stating they actively sought out this feeling (second only to Wonderment for the rate of response in the top answer).

It seems that if we want to make better games for everyone, we should be looking at how to make our games funnier, not more challenging!


Bottom of the List

Finally, you might be interested to know what the bottom three emotions were. At number 20, it was Sadness (2.08), at number 21, Guilt (1.91) and bottom of the barrel at number 22 was Embarrassment (1.70). In all three cases, more than half the respondents said no game had made them feel this way. Oddly, 1.1% of respondents said they actively sought out games that made them feel embarrassed – even allowing for some fatuous respondents, this is still odd. I guess it truly is different strokes for different folks!

More preliminary results from the DGD2 survey data soon. 

New Poll: Save Games


What do you think about save games? Do you need absolute control over them, or do you prefer when the game deals with all that sort of thing automatically? There's a new poll about save game schema in the sidebar; I think it's about time we re-opened this topic now the term "next generation" is starting to sound anachronistic. How much ratcheted progress do you need to enjoy a game? What save game mechanisms are your favourites from the videogames you've been playing? Let me know in the comments!

Have a fun weekend everyone!

Big Two: Rules


The following are the rules that my wife and I use to play the popular Asian card game Big Two (or Choh Dai Di). There are many variations of this game, and these rules should certainly not be considered definitive! I hope you will give the game a try – let me know in the comments if you do.

How to Play

The basis of Big Two is a race to get rid of your cards. It supports 2, 3 or 4 players with one deck, and up to 8 players with two decks shuffled together. You will be dealt 13 cards in each game, and you can play these cards in four different ways: 

  • As Singles (just one card)
  • As Pairs (two cards of matching values)
  • As Triplets or “Trips” (three cards of matching values)
  • As Poker Hands (five cards forming a straight, flush, full house, four of a kind or straight flush)

Note: you must play a fifth card with four of a kind to make a legitimate five card poker hand. 

The game consists of a number of hands, each consisting of a number of rounds. Each hand begins by the players being dealt 13 cards (deal passes to the left after each hand).

The player who is dealt the 3 of Diamonds starts each hand (see below for how to discover this), and must make a play involving this card to begin the first round. For instance, they could just play the 3 of Diamonds as a single, or if they had a straight involving this 3, they could lead with that.

(If no-one has the 3 of Diamonds, the player with the next lowest card leads with that instead).

Whichever type of play is led, the next player clockwise around the table must play a higher card (or combination of cards) of the same type – for instance, if the player with the 3 of Diamonds plays a pair of 3’s to start the round, the next player must play a pair of a higher value.

Players can choose to pass if they don’t want to play, and must pass if they cannot play. When all other players have passed, the last player to successfully make a play has possession and can begin a new round with whatever play they wish. 

Whatever type of play begins a round, all subsequent plays must be of the same type – for instance, if a player begins a round with a straight, the next player must play a higher straight or a better poker hand (e.g. a flush, full house, four of a kind or a straight flush).

The hand ends when someone successfully plays their last card. The winning player scores one point for each card in every other player’s hand, and this score is doubled for each 2 in the final play – for instance, if the player goes out with a pair of 2’s, their score is multiplied by 4 (2x2), and if they go out with four of a kind in 2’s their score is multiplied by 16 (2x2x2x2). 

Play to 49 points or whatever score you choose.


Order of Precedence

The game is called Big Two because the highest card you can play is a 2 – that is, the order of values in this games goes 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, J, Q, K, A, 2. Nothing beats a 2. 

Furthermore, the suits are ranked in the following order (from bottom to top): Diamonds, Clubs, Hearts, Spades. Therefore, the lowest card in the game is the 3 of Diamonds, and the highest card is the 2 of Spades. Mr Choh Dai Di

Example: In a round of singles, if a player leads the King of Clubs, the next player can follow with a higher ranked King (King of Hearts or Spades), or a higher ranked card of any suit (an Ace or a Two).

To remember the order of the suits, imagine Mr. Choh Dai Di, pictured right:

He has a Spade on his head
Below the head, you find his Heart
He suffers from a Club foot
And has Diamonds on the soles of his shoes

All plays are ranked on the basis of the highest card in the play, except as follows: 

  • Full houses are ranked on the basis of the three matching cards, never the two – for instance, a full house of sevens full of aces (3 x 7, 2 x A) is considered a full house of sevens, not of aces, so you can play (for instance) a full house of nines full of threes to beat it.
  • Four of a kinds are ranked on the basis of the four matching cards, never the “kicker” – for instance, four sixes with a two can be followed by four eights with a four, because eight beats four.

Examples of legitimate plays: 

  • Following a pair of Jacks consisting of the Jack of Diamonds and Jack of Hearts, another player could play a pair of Jacks consisting of the Jack of Clubs and the Jack of Spades because the first pair’s highest card was Jack of Hearts and the Jack of Spades beats the Jack of      Hearts.
  • Following a straight consisting of A, K, Q, J and 10 in various suits (with the Ace being a Spade) you couldn’t play A, K, Q, J, 10 (because Ace of Spades is the top Ace) but you could play 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 with any suits, as any Two beats any Ace. The highest straight, therefore, would be A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 with the Two being the Two of Spades.


Total Information versus Uncertainty 

If this game is played with four players, all the cards are in play (as in Bridge) so it becomes a total information game. Played this way, the game requires more thoughtful planning and the application of memory to recall what has been played. I hate playing games this way, and so I prefer to play with two or three players.

When there are undealt cards in a hand (as happens when there are fewer than four players), no-one knows for certain which cards will win at any point. This uncertainty makes play more fluid (less time spent thinking) and intuitive, but the game is still fiendishly competitive – one can really shaft the other player in heads-up play with skilful choices. 

To play with four players and uncertainty, use two decks of cards. When playing with more than one deck, you still must play higher than the previous play, so if the previous player plays the 2 of Spades, you must pass, even if you have another 2 of Spades in your hand.


Determining Who Starts 

At the beginning of each hand, it is necessary to determine who has the 3 of Diamonds. In a four player game, the player with this card simply declares it. In two or three player games, the following kind of communication can reveal the player who must lead:

  • If your hand doesn’t include the 3 of Diamonds say “I don’t have the 3 of Diamonds” or “I don’t have it”
  • If no-one has the 3 of Diamonds, but you have a 3 of another suit say “I have a three”. Cycle through the 3’s in sequence (Clubs, Hearts, Spades) until the lead card is found.
  • If you have no threes, say “I have no threes.” If no-one has any threes, repeat this process with the fours and so on until the lead card is found.

For example: 

Alan’s lowest card is the 4 of Spades, and Christie’s lowest card is the 4 of Clubs. Alan sees he has no 3’s and says “I don’t have it”. Christie sees the same and says “Neither do I”. Alan replies: “I don’t have any threes” to which Christie says “neither do I”. Alan asks: “do you have a four?” Christie replies: “yes”. Alan knows his four is the 4 of Spades – the highest four – so by definition, Christie must lead. “Lead with your lowest four, then,” Alan says.


Optional Advice on Organising Your Hand 

When you first play Big Two, it can be confusing working out how to organise your hand. Should you break up pairs to make a straight, for instance? Here is my advice on how to organise your hand.

  • Start by checking for flushes – do you have five cards of the same suit? And, just as importantly: what will the rest of your hand look like if you form a flush? It’s no good having a poker hand if you don’t have any means of gaining possession (a two, or a pair of aces, say) as you probably won’t get to play it.
  • If you have a lot of pairs, and especially if some of your pairs are highly ranked, it may be best to aim to play in pairs: other players often run out of pairs, and once they have no pairs you can play the rest of your pairs unopposed.
  • Other players don’t often have trips, so you can usually win a round with any triplet. You can also make a triplet into a full house by adding a pair, and have a great chance that no-one will beat you – but you can be caught out by a higher full house, a four of a kind or a straight flush!
  • Every game is likely to include at least one round of singles, because few hands can be fully disposed of without ditching a lot of singles. However, there might only be one or two rounds of singles – if  your hand consists mostly of singles, you will struggle to go out. If you have a good single (a high two, for instance) that could get you possession, you can try forming straights or flushes to ditch as many cards as possible easily.
  • Victory in this game is about winning rounds so you gain possession and can control the type of play in the next round, therefore you should plan your hand in whatever way gives you the best chances of winning rounds. For instance, a pair of Aces has a good chance of being the highest play in a pairs round, but a straight with an Ace in it might be beaten by almost any other poker hand.
  • Similarly, three Twos seems like an awesome play, but it may be better to play them as singles or a pair and a single as this will win you possession more often.

Lastly, don’t forget that however you organise your hand after the deal, you can reorganise your hand to play differently whenever the need arises. For instance, if another player just played a weak straight (say, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3), check your hand to see if you can make a better straight – and decide if this would be a better play than passing. 

It’s these tricky decisions on how to play your hand that are at the heart of the play of Big Two – do you hold onto your twos to try and go out with them for the bonus multiplier, or do you use them to win rounds? The choice is yours!

With thanks to John McLeod for the rules I used to learn to play, Matt Mower for pointing them out to me, and my wife for beating me so often at it!

If you decide to give Big Two a try, do let me know in the comments! It’s a great two player game, which makes it easy to give it a try as you only need to find one other person to play with. I’d love to hear from you about your experiences with learning the game from these rules, and I'll check back in a month to see if anyone has been giving it a go. Have fun!

Gamers ♥ Stories (and other titbits)

We are about to begin the number crunching for our new player model, DGD2, and I thought I'd share a few titbits of raw data with you. Sadly, a bug has corrupted two of the data fields from the survey, but the information lost is not vital to the study, and we should be able to proceed with the wealth of data we have.

We've received 1,040 responses to the survey, of which 55% (576) are from North America, 30% (317) are from Western Europe or the UK, 5% (52) are from Australasia, and a few responses from everywhere else in the world besides.

The majority of respondents play games every day (66%), with many of the others playing every week (26%). Interestingly, of those that self-identified as "Hardcore", 81% play every day, and of those that self-identified as "Casual", 49% play every day. It seems that even people who see themselves as a Casual player are still playing amazingly often.

The most popular approach is to play alone (40%), with just a few playing single player games with pad passing or some similar group play (7%). The remaining players all prefer some kind of multiplayer format, whether in the same room (17%) or over the internet (19%, of which 5% is team or clan play), with the remaining 16% preferring virtual worlds and MMORPGs.

On the subject of game stories, there is overwhelming consensus, with 93% saying either that stories are very important to their enjoyment of videogames (36%) or that stories help them enjoy videogames (57%). A mere 5% say stories are not important, and just 1.25% say they prefer videogames without stories. Clearly, story occupies a vital space in the modern world of videogames gamers love stories!

Next week: Top 10 Videogame Emotions!

Sci fi Master Quiz

Test your geek fu with this five question Master Quiz:

1. The title character of the 1920 psychological horror movie about a piece of furniture.
2. The name of the Doctor Who serial in which the Doctor introduces himself by the name from (1)
3. The name of the second actor to play the Doctor (hint: not T)
4. The role (3) plays in Star Wars
5. The 1930s and 40s novels, and the Akira Kurasawa film, that inspired the original Star Wars movie

Please DON'T post the answers unless you think you have all five - just post the number of questions you can answer, or say which questions you can or can't answer. 

The winner is the first person to post the five correct answers, and the prize is a shimmering nugget of pure glory!

Update: Winners!

This mini-game has been won by Zach Kamsler & Fang Langford. Congratulations! Your glory will be beamed directly into your limbic system where you should feel a warm fuzzy glow.