"Sonic Dissected" Dissected: (LEGO) Sonic Dimensions As You Truly Imagined It

[StaticMania]

If he wasn't the one who could reverse the machine, he obviously would make due with what ever he's got left. Him being against "mindless destruction" has nothing to do with how he would react to still having something to take over, he'd build over the dead planet and probably recreate the world in his own image. He's against using mindless destruction to achieve his own goals, not against "it" ending up doing so in a way he couldn't control.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

I have the impression that Eggman would simply build over the dead parts of the planet. That and I don't think he's all that caring about a fraction of the planets inhabitants as long as there's still some left to worship and adore him.

 

And he also had all these giant space stations with huge-ass lasers on them. What's he gonna do with huge-ass lasers? Put on a light show?

Starlight Carnival comes to mind for me.

[Briraka]

Starlight Carnival comes to mind for me.

Oh geez, I wasn't even thinking of that when I was making that post. Haha, good one!

[TheHeatSeeker0]

To be fair, I still don't see the big fucking deal about the things Sonic Team included in SA2. Pokemon has tackled governmental conspiracy sci-fi stuff. Pokemon. Hell, SA2 and the first Pokemon movie have nearly the same storyline. The inclusion of these things as plot devices is less about some arbitrary list of what's "appropriate" and what isn't (which in turn is based off arbitrary categorization of things into "realistic" or "cartoon," and the inability to see these things as not mutually exclusive), and more about appropriating them to the actual universe. With as much shit that goes down in the Sonic universe- and with the knowledge that people exist in comparable numbers to our planet- I would be questioning why there isn't a fucking military around if GUN never existed. 

Here's the thing about Pokemon and Sonic tackling the same storyline: Sonic and co on their own are entertaining characters, unlike the cast of pokemon(as far as I remember, it's been a long time since I watched pokemon). Sonic is about action. He's got super speed, and spinball through robots, perform stunts, and all kinds of things, giving you a good show. Ash, Misty, and Brock.... just some kids on an adventure who can barely do anything, who have to rely on creatures who say their name over and over again, and very simple and limited actions, such as Pikachu, who all he does is raise his arms and shoot electricity, he can run fast but only as an attack and if ash tells him to, hell, Pikechu has to rely on ash cause he can't do squat on his own(which is why he lost to Blanka in Death Battle). Now, since a lot of people in the Sonic fandom have a hard time dealing with Sonic... actually being cool, lemme give some other examples of entertaining characters:

 

All 3 of these cartoons have something in common: All 3 of them have entertaining characters in one way or another, mainly action and comedy. The drive different vehicles, shoots guns, or just beat up bad guys, the type of cool "in you face" action people like to see. Take Ash, Misty, and Brock(this being about the first movie and me never seeing Mewtwo strikes back, I'm sticking to them), and stick them in any of these cartoons, and you'd barely get anything out of them without giving them any of the traits seen in the videos. On the flip side, take any of those characters from those vids and put them in Pokemon: The First Movie, and it'll be a whole different ball game. Looking at that and looking back at SA2, that's how it does better then pokemon, cause (as proven by various cartoons and comics), Sonic and co. can be entertaining characters on their own playing field, so mixing them with an action packed storyline such as in SA2, you got a good show.

 

I've actually said this a lot. Especially with Mewtwo Strikes Back and SA2. Personally, I think it's due to the division of the fanbase by them changing formulas a thousand and one times where people relate, somehow, gameplay and story together -- taking up banners and whatnot.

Say side A faction liked SA2 more than Colors, they'll defend many of its aspects. Side B, say, likes Colors more, they'll defend it more.

Both sides will shame the others, even for reasons not related to why they liked it. Thus creating different aspects, different flags to fly.

Pokemon, on the other hand, hasn't changed its formula up. The only thing it's really changed is new Pokemon and abilities. There's division, sure, but mostly in the Generations of Pokemon, less so story, and even less so gameplay.

The thing about SA2 vs. Colors is that when people bring up flaws within SA2, a good amount of times, they nitpick certain aspects and make it sound as if stupid or something, as with Colors, the writing overall is quite boring, and doesn't need to be nitpicked because you the writing barely provides any meat to it to make you not care about the flaws, and most of it lies within the dialogue itself and plot point that barely went anywhere, so even if there was a good story, the constant dry jokes and slapstick will drag it down. Dunno the deal about pokemon on this subject of divided people because if we're talking about story, the main games(as far as I know), barely provide anything anyway.

 

And that's why I don't like SA2's plot the way it is. They didn't think through how the story's elements tie together leaving a whole bunch of holes in the plot. Why did GUN shut down the ARK in such a brutal manner? What could have caused them to do so? The game never answers theses questions.

While you're right about lack of detail on why they did, in the end, that's enough detail to make you care about the subject, to the point you wont care about the answer, cause in the end, I doubt there's anyway to justify such slaughter anyway. It's not a matter of thinking through, it's a matter of not giving a certain detail, but like I said, it still makes you care, and the answer most likely wont justify the means.

 

Eh, I feel that Shadow's past has more relevance to SA2's plot than the Six's in SLW. Shadow's past is entirely why events in the game are transpiring, so some lack of attention to detail really sticks out in my mind. The Deadly Six however, their past or the lore behind them aren't really the focus of LW. LW is more about Sonic, Tails and Eggman and their teaming up. Plus, I don't think that they needed too big of an explanation behind them because of LW's more classic setting. I dunno, like six lizard people living on a planetiod in the middle of the sky is the kind of weird shit you'd see in CD or something...

 

(btw, Zavok didn't want to destroy the world, he wanted to get back at Eggman by sucking the energy out of Earth/Mobius/Freedom/Sonic's World/whogivesashitnow and he and his crew get more power as a bonus.)

 

Now, for some clarification: I don't think SA2 is a completely bad story. I just think that they needed to give more of a reason for why things are happening.

What I'm seeing here is you choosing which parts to care about in order to justify one story lacking detail while criticizing the other for the same thing, problems are:

1. The Undeadly Jokes ARE the reason why Sonic, Tails and Eggman are teamed up. I alos notice thos aspect of the story doesn't require much detail to be needed, but the problem here isthe dialogue dragging it down, and making you care less about it. Not to mention they don't even do anything but have Sonic(and everyone else) crack jokes at eggman. Not to mention that you have Tails get pissed off at Sonic for trusting Eggman, when in Colors, it was Tails who thought Eggman wasn't up to know good, which given the long history, would make him even more gulliable then Knuckles.

 

2.Just because you feel it's classic setting doesn't change anything. It's not a classic game, it's a full blown modern game(a term I'm using loosly here) with cutscenes and a significant amount of writing. The classics didn't have those, just press start and go, and even then, the stories were told in the manuels. Therefore, Lost World has as much as a responsiblity to share it's details as SA2 is expected to, but as I said before, SA2 does more to entertain you, while Lost World just craped childish jokes over and over again, or just being boring.

 

To note, at least in the comics, when Sonic asked Eggman about Enerjak(most pwerful villain in the comics), Eggman stops trying to kill Sonic and says that he has some data. Sonic actually approaching Eggman for help, and Eggman actually stoping his attack is a clear sign that they know they know how serious the situation is, and shouldn't be fighting each other.

 

Far as criticizing Lost Mind's story telling overall, compared to SA2, Lost Mind'ss story is more safe and simple, so it's easier to not make mistakes, but they didn't do anything to make it interesting enough, and the characters overall were dry. As silly as people try to mkae out SA2, at least the characters themselves actually took matters seriously, and that combined with the type of story it had, made you care enough to get into it even with the flaws, which in itself makes the story good. Keep in mind that you can have a good story that's simple, but you have to tell it in a certain way to make it good, appealing, and generally having cool stuff in it, to get people hooked. Hell, imagine SA2 with the same story but more comedic dialogue. Even if I found writing cringe worthy, if they still have cool things in it with high stakes at risk, it could still be generally interesting in the least.

[Kuzu]

Did you just try to say Pokemon isn't entertaining or action orientated? The hell...

[SIXTH-RATE SOMA]

Did you just try to say Pokemon isn't entertaining

 

Isn't a hard statement to make, comrade.

[TheHeatSeeker0]

Did you just try to say Pokemon isn't entertaining or action orientated? The hell...

I didn't say it didn't have any action, it's just not as entertaining in that regard, moreso on characteristics, compared to Sonic and the cartoons I posted. Again, if you replaced the main cast of Pokemon with any of the examples given, the result would be a much better show.

 

Also, I wanna bag back on my example from my last comment:

(Keep in mind that you can have a good story that's simple, but you have to tell it in a certain way to make it good, appealing, and generally having cool stuff in it, to get people hooked. Hell, imagine SA2 with the same story but more comedic dialogue. Even if I found writing cringe worthy, if they still have cool things in it with high stakes at risk, it could still be generally interesting in the least.)

 

SA2 was a bad example here since it's story wasn't simple, and I commented more on the writing. Here's a better example:

 

Now, this is all I can post because I can't find any footage of it's cutscenes, but this XBLA game also has a simple story to it, which is a bunch of robots being effected by a virus and taking over a space station, and A.R.E.S., the main character, has to shoot his way through them to stop them. The cutscenes themselves aren't that long and are just a few screens of pictures and text, but the characters themselves still take the situation as seriously as it apparently is, plus, there a since of urgency when you're told by one of the survivers on board the station that there's a secret weapon that the virus could take over and use to destroy humanity, I.E., making you care, and told in a way to make sure you do.

[Nepenthe]

I'm not sure you understood the point of my comparison. The point of it was to exemplify the fact that children's-oriented series have included "heavy" plot points like governmental agencies and tragic sci-fi stories in them, Pokemon: The First Movie being a great example because it possesses a few very identical story beats to SA2: a bio-engineered creature that forges a short-lived friendship with a sick girl, an ill-fated laboratory, and the creature seeking worldwide revenge.

 

The biggest difference is that no one complained- nor complains today- about Pokemon: The First Movie including story beats and plot devices it "couldn't handle," especially on some implied-yet-arbitrary basis of "well, sci-fi is for adults and Pokemon is for children thus the two shouldn't mix!" Everyone around here seems perfectly content to let tons of children's cartoons and games that include remarkably similar plot devices and story beats as SA2 slide without a hitch. But Sonic jumping into the President's car is seen as some sort of heretical violation of tone.

 

The only thing one can conclude from the amount of controversy Sonic gets for doing things other similar series do on just the basis of merely including them, is that Sonic is indeed so much more inherently immature that he can only be rightfully deemed marketable to five-year olds and under. Truly, if Sonic cannot have the same story beats as a fucking Pokemon movie, then people see this franchise as more boring and child-oriented than I thought.

[Kuzu]

I didn't say it didn't have any action, it's just not as entertaining in that regard, moreso on characteristics, compared to Sonic and the cartoons I posted. Again, if you replaced the main cast of Pokemon with any of the examples given, the result would be a much better show.

 

But which show is more "entertaining" has nothing to do with what was being talked about. :\

[TheHeatSeeker0]

I'm not sure you understood the point of my comparison. The point of it was to exemplify the fact that children's-oriented series have included "heavy" plot points like governmental agencies and tragic sci-fi stories in them, Pokemon: The First Movie being a great example because it possesses a few very identical story beats to SA2: a bio-engineered creature that forges a short-lived friendship with a sick girl, an ill-fated laboratory, and the creature seeking worldwide revenge.

 

The biggest difference is that no one complained- nor complains today- about Pokemon: The First Movie including story beats and plot devices it "couldn't handle," especially on some implied-yet-arbitrary basis of "well, sci-fi is for adults and Pokemon is for children thus the two shouldn't mix!" Everyone around here seems perfectly content to let tons of children's cartoons and games that include remarkably similar plot devices and story beats as SA2 slide without a hitch. But Sonic jumping into the President's car is seen as some sort of heretical violation of tone.

 

The only thing one can conclude from the amount of controversy Sonic gets for doing things other similar series do on just the basis of merely including them, is that Sonic is indeed so much more inherently immature that he can only be rightfully deemed marketable to five-year olds and under. Truly, if Sonic cannot have the same story beats as a fucking Pokemon movie, then people see this franchise as more boring and child-oriented than I thought.

 

I see what you're saying now. What confused me was when you said that you didn't see the big deal with the things SA2 added, which I thought you were saying in the case of not seeing the big deal of liking, but it's the other way around right? In that case, yes, I would have to agree, it's from what I've seen since Sonic Colors, it's the thought process of "fans" claiming Sonic needs to be marketed to 5 year olds. Many people say it's a fear of another Shadow and 06, but many times have I've seen poeple claiming that they like "cute and light hearted things" and "Simple stories", not to mention the amount of Nintendo fans and MLP fans and how many of the loud mouths from both groups view anything "hardcore" and barely notice anything that happens to be around the tone of their preffered medias(games like De Blob and cartoons like New Loony Toons not getting their recognition), giving off the notion that they it's more of an issue of vanity and less about what Sonic "should be", as even the classics were not as kiddy as what we're getting now.

 

Also, I wanna bring up a qoute from TVTropes on this issue:

 

 

During their heyday in the 90s, almost all Mascots With Attitude were created in order to capitalize on the success of one Sonic the Hedgehog. The reason that most of these failed is that they came across as The Theme Park Version of Sonic. Often a Mascot with Attitude would have said attitude at the expense of a real personality, never able to say anything not snarky and often with one overused gimmick (Gex's personality mostly consisted of, "loves T.V." and "quotes movies out of context") and basically most of them were Flat Characters. Also a lot of them were filled with outdated LooneyTunes cartoony gags either because the writers couldn't wrap their heads around anthropomorphic animals not being Looney Toons rejects or they were part of the Grossout Cartoon fad of the mid 90's. Sonic himself notably had neither of these things in his games.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MascotWithAttitude

[SenEDDtor Missile]

I'm not sure you understood the point of my comparison. The point of it was to exemplify the fact that children's-oriented series have included "heavy" plot points like governmental agencies and tragic sci-fi stories in them, Pokemon: The First Movie being a great example because it possesses a few very identical story beats to SA2: a bio-engineered creature that forges a short-lived friendship with a sick girl, an ill-fated laboratory, and the creature seeking worldwide revenge.

 

The biggest difference is that no one complained- nor complains today- about Pokemon: The First Movie including story beats and plot devices it "couldn't handle," especially on some implied-yet-arbitrary basis of "well, sci-fi is for adults and Pokemon is for children thus the two shouldn't mix!" Everyone around here seems perfectly content to let tons of children's cartoons and games that include remarkably similar plot devices and story beats as SA2 slide without a hitch. But Sonic jumping into the President's car is seen as some sort of heretical violation of tone.

 

The only thing one can conclude from the amount of controversy Sonic gets for doing things other similar series do on just the basis of merely including them, is that Sonic is indeed so much more inherently immature that he can only be rightfully deemed marketable to five-year olds and under. Truly, if Sonic cannot have the same story beats as a fucking Pokemon movie, then people see this franchise as more boring and child-oriented than I thought.

What makes this even sadder is that POWER RANGERS, a show known for being super cheesy and rather formulaic at times, is allowed to be darker and explore more interesting territory without much of a problem, although how well they do it varies from season to season. POWER. FUCKING. RANGERS! If that doesn't show how screwy our standards for Sonic has become, I dunno what will.

[Roger_van_der_weide]

Truly, if Sonic cannot have the same story beats as a fucking Pokemon movie, then people see this franchise as more boring and child-oriented than I thought.

Hmmm mmm mmm, what a delicious quote.

Don't mind me remembering this one for future use.

Nonetheless, I'm getting tired of the Lost world/ Sonic adventure 2 story discussing and I think most people here are, so let's consider it debated? ^^;

I assume when Heatseeker said Pokemon isn't action orientated, he was referring specifically to the main characters, Ash, Misty, Brock.

Other then that, Pokemon and Sonic work on entirely diffrent levels, so comparing is a bit awkward.

[TheHeatSeeker0]

Hmmm mmm mmm, what a delicious quote.

Don't mind me remembering this one for future use.

Nonetheless, I'm getting tired of the Lost world/ Sonic adventure 2 story discussing and I think most people here are, so let's consider it debated? ^^;

I assume when Heatseeker said Pokemon isn't action orientated, he was referring specifically to the main characters, Ash, Misty, Brock.

Other then that, Pokemon and Sonic work on entirely diffrent levels, so comparing is a bit awkward.

Agreed with all you said, but to clarify, I was also comparing the pokemon to, as even Pikachu doesn't hold up as much on action, not his capabilities, but being an entertaining character on his own right. Of course, reading that comment, I may have made the mistake of thinking Nepenthe was saying he didn't see the big deal in SA2's content when it comes to people liking it, as oppose to "why do people complain about it", and also thinking he was saying we give SA2 special treatment when Pokemon even did the same thing.

 

But which show is more "entertaining" has nothing to do with what was being talked about. :\

That was me misinturpriting what Nepenthe said. Even if that wasn't the main subject, it's a good reason as to why Sonic tackling the same narritive is more enjoyable then pokemon doing it. Though, I'm not trying to discredit the whole movie, just the protagonists.

 

 

What makes this even sadder is that POWER RANGERS, a show known for being super cheesy and rather formulaic at times, is allowed to be darker and explore more interesting territory without much of a problem, although how well they do it varies from season to season. POWER. FUCKING. RANGERS! If that doesn't show how screwy our standards for Sonic has become, I dunno what will.

What about Earthbound and it's final boss, or even better, Kirby's many distrubing final bosses, as oppose to Sonic games where he faces giant gods and people complain about because Eggman should be the main villain, when King Dedede has barely done anything himself.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

But Sonic jumping into the President's car is seen as some sort of heretical violation of tone.

Uh...to be fair, that seems more a violation of common sense by fact that someone jumping into the car of a national leader should have been treated as a potential threat towards the President and something Sonic should've gotten shot for...but that's just nitpicking.

 

 

What makes this even sadder is that POWER RANGERS, a show known for being super cheesy and rather formulaic at times, is allowed to be darker and explore more interesting territory without much of a problem, although how well they do it varies from season to season. POWER. FUCKING. RANGERS! If that doesn't show how screwy our standards for Sonic has become, I dunno what will.

I don't know if that's actually a fair comparison, because even Sonic treaded darker and edgier territory back in the 90s without a problem. Really, it's more the hypocrisy of people looking back at SA2 and saying that Sonic can't or shouldn't handle that tone in hindsight, while at the same time having no complaints towards other series doing it, hence Nepenthe's example of Pokemon the First Movie that people continue to praise to this very day over it's darker shift in tone and narrative. In fact, the Pokemon movies in general are far darker on screen than the usual animated series, with shocking elements of characters like Celebi and Zoroark dying on screen (although they get revived), torture, and psychological elements like that in Pokemon: Spell of the Unknown. Hell, you see Deoxys get disintegrated from Rayquaza's Hyper Beam in Destiny Deoxys.

 

Yet hardly ever do fans call out Pokemon for going this route, if not actually praising it for doing so, and continuing to praise darker elements even in the current games - hell, I hear there were things like warfare, death, and even fucking weapons of mass destruction (oh, hai there SA2) in Pokemon X and Y.

 

People associate things like Pokemon as something far more kid-oriented than Sonic, yet it pulls these things off. And that's the major point against the basis of Sonic being incapable or not suited to handling such dark elements himself, because it doesn't even stop at just Pokemon. Megaman does it as well, and there are a lot more similarities between the Sonic and Megaman series than Sonic and Pokemon. So if any series with similarities to Sonic's general atmosphere is capable of treading these waters, it is completely unfair if not downright hypocritical to make Sonic the exception to it and disallow him from doing his own take on the concepts.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Don't forget that the tone in SA1 and SA2 is basically a Roland Emmerich movie. Both games capitalizing on the success of Independence Day and Godzilla.

You know, all this time I've never bothered to make even a faint connection of Godzilla to SA1. That's actually pretty funny when I look back at it with Chaos shooting a laser cannon from his mouth like Godzilla himself.

[XEspmasterX]

To be honest, the whole thing with SA2's story being "too dark" is probably just a lasting repercussion of Shadow's game.

I do wonder, though, what people here would consider the best story in a Sonic game?

[SenEDDtor Missile]

To be honest, the whole thing with SA2's story being "too dark" is probably just a lasting repercussion of Shadow's game.

I do wonder, though, what people here would consider the best story in a Sonic game?

Don't ask. You'll only get a million different answers. Then much passive aggressive anger.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

Speaking as someone who likes/loves SA and SA2's stories, I'd say the problem is a mix of SEGA botching up stories that they pushed as "dark" along with factions of fans who take things to extreme unfortunately blacklisting stories that actually did get the balance right as  overly dark when really only the abominative 06 story really took it that way ( I give credit to ShtH for at least progressing the character and giving me the sort laugh I get out of Commando and whatnot).

[XEspmasterX]

Yeah, I sort of realized after I posted that that it's likely that there is no consensus on the best Sonic story (though I see the storybook games get a lot of love.) Go ahead and ignore the question.

[Komodin]

If I may hop on in...
 

I do wonder, though, what people here would consider the best story in a Sonic game?

 
In terms of overall presentation, Sonic Unleashed, both Sonic Storybook titles and Sonic Adventure 2 -- surprisingly enough! -- all easily get my vote. We can still do a heck of a lot better than just them, though, so it's not really saying much.
 
Also:
 
 

1. The Undeadly Jokes ARE the reason why Sonic, Tails and Eggman are teamed up.

 

Far as criticizing Lost Mind's story telling overall, compared to SA2, Lost Mind'ss story is more safe and simple, so it's easier to not make mistakes, but they didn't do anything to make it interesting enough, and the characters overall were dry.

 

Yeah, we can really do without this whole "detractor nickname" nonsense. It just makes your argument look unnecessarily mean-spirited, like you're just in it to piss people off.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

To be honest, the whole thing with SA2's story being "too dark" is probably just a lasting repercussion of Shadow's game.

I do wonder, though, what people here would consider the best story in a Sonic game?

That's a bit hard to say.

 

The Adventures, both SA1 and 2 stories are considered great for taking Sonic to a new level, although they have their hiccups. Unleashed is a bit love or hate, because it has a much more expansive and diverse world, but it's story starts off intense and falls in the middle and leaves you hanging until the end - not exactly great when you should be going for a build up in a narrative. Colors is seen as decent for at least trying to set itself straighter than where the series was during ShTH and Sonic 06, and Lost World has it's praises for trying to push the envelope once again.

 

And mind you, I'm just talking mainstream titles that get the most attention. You could throw in Black Knight as that doesn't have a lot of the same flaws as the other titles as it delivers both tension and comedy, surprisingly. Makes you wonder why they didn't get the people who wrote that plot to write the mainstream games.

 

So you're going to get a kitchen sink of responses instead of a singular title people hold up. There's always flaws in one thing or the other that seems to put people off one narrative or the other.

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

 

I do wonder, though, what people here would consider the best story in a Sonic game?

Something like a mix of Sonic Lost World Sonic Colors and Sonic 2006.

 

I like Sonic Lost World because the story was cute but it wasnt to kiddy. It was a story I can understand and to the point. Sonic 2006 was a dark story not for laughs like another game was. Sonic Colors I can go on about how amazing the story was.

[Jin.]

Honestly the only stories that held my intrest were SA1 and SA2. The storybooks came to mind but thinking back it was all just random bullshit before you got to your final destination. Sonic Colours and Sonic Lost World tried to have a story but it was crushed by one toned writing. Sonic Unleasheds story was... Meh. It pushed its luck too far with the Werehog. Sonic 06 was definetly "dark" but the problem was that the writing was objectively atrocious in itself. ShTH was an unnecessarily expanded backstory attached to a trainwreck and Heroes' story was swallowed under long and repetitive gameplay. Riders was OK for a spinoff I guess. Gens and the classics may as well have no story.

I may be picky because I know a lot of games that do have excellent story, but when I look at Gens and 06 I'm certain of myself that any story with Sonic in it will inevitably be crap.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Something like a mix of Sonic Lost World Sonic Colors and Sonic 2006.

 

I like Sonic Lost World because the story was cute but it wasnt to kiddy. It was a story I can understand and to the point. Sonic 2006 was a dark story not for laughs like another game was. Sonic Colors I can go on about how amazing the story was.

Now, Sonikku, I'm not trying to be mean, but very few people think Sonic 06 mixed with anything would be a decent story.

 

It's perfectly okay if you like it, and I ironically don't want to turn this into a debate, but understand you're walking around landmines stating that.

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

Now, Sonikku, I'm not trying to be mean, but very few people think Sonic 06 mixed with anything would be a decent story.

 

It's perfectly okay if you like it, and I ironically don't want to turn this into a debate, but understand you're walking around landmines stating that.

i understand.