Wave Foam – “Jenova speaks… and we’d do well to listen”

tgc-jenova-chen

Jenova Chen (“flOw”, “flower“) spoke at the Develop 2009 conference in Brighton. I’ve found two different excerpts of his talk, which you can access here and here. Besides mentioning that a new game is in the making (rejoice!) he mentions similar ideas to the ones I’ve discussed in my recent “State of the Art” editorials. I’d like to give particular emphasis to one sentence that I find of utmost importance – according to Gamasutra, while developing “flower“, Chen realized “that in the attempt to make a “fun” game, the team had blunted the emotional impact.” This is a crucial point of my “games can’t express emotions” ‘thesis’, and something I’ve argued for a long time.

Art is a vehicle of emotional expression and communication, the translation of an author’s personal beliefs, feelings and sense of aesthetics into the work of a specific medium. That’s why, for games to be an art form, designers need to focus on emotional expressiveness, and to do so there is no other answer than shunning ‘ludism’ and the ‘fun’ side of games. Because ‘ludism’ is the shape of traditional games, and games aren’t about emotion, they’re about challenge, competition, reward and penalty. That’s why they could never serve as proper inspiration for an art form. But in its current form, computer games’ interactive dimension can only express very crude, low level emotions – the ones it inherited from traditional games. And because we’ve been stuck with that (pseudo) emotional template, we’re still light-years away from the expressive power of a film, book, symphony or painting.

Screenshot of "Citizen Kane", which the American Film Institute named the greatest movie of all time

This is the main reason why games “don’t have their own Citizen Kane” [yes, I’m pulling a “Citizen Kane” on you guys, you’ve earned it]. I don’t know what a “Citizen Kane” of video-games would look like, and quite honestly, I don’t think it even matters to this debate. Because whatever it looks (or will look) like, I’m pretty sure I haven’t seen it yet. And whoever thinks otherwise needs to watch “Citizen Kane” again, and appreciate how far cinema went from its genesis to that singular point in time. Games haven’t tread that path yet, and they’re pretty much where they were when they first emerged. Matter of fact is: video-games still aren’t able to convey madness, loss, nostalgia, hope, aging, infancy, memory, love, longing, or any of the other complex dimensions that are part of the wealthy, emotional tapestry of “Citizen Kane”. And in place of “Citizen Kane” you can place any other masterpiece of cinema, literature or music, that this fundamental truth will still hold. There is no “Citizen Kane” of video-games.

And while we’re on a fatalist note, let’s be honest, with the way things are going, it’s likely games never will achieve that high point. Designers blindly insist on this abhorrent paradigm of ‘fun’, and everyone seems to be on board with them. But for the interactive medium to evolve into a proper art form, it needs to move away from the language of ‘fun’, and into a new interactive language that can express emotions and complex abstract concepts. An emotional, artistic language. Right now, games aren’t artistic, they’re ‘fun’. For some that suffices. Not to me.

That is why I’m curious to see where this newfound truth will lead Chen, and other visionary creators like him, in future ventures.

Advertisements
  • Trackback are closed
  • Comments (20)
    • ruicraveirinha
    • July 16th, 2009

    “At the end of the day, a game can be as emotional and intelligent as it wants, but if it’s not still fun at the same time, I couldn’t give a crap.”
    ~Jim Sterling, Destructoid

    What a nice, exemplifying point of view. And people still wonder why games suck.

  1. I’m not so sure about a game not being able to convey an emotion. I remember when I was younger an uncle of mine offered me a board game called “Solitaire” – you know the one?

    While I forgot the rules long ago, I do remember thinking that the game was invented by some recluse using stones in his confined cell, a person with a lot of time in his hands and a mind of his own that had to be occupied by something. So from then on, being a child, I started to play the game – this being a single player experience – while trying to understand the emotions it convened. As far as I can tell, that little board game offered me a very interesting insight about solitude and the slow passage of time associated with that particular emotional state. I have experienced firsthand the exact opposite of “games don’t express emotions”.

    I see, however, the point of it. In videogames, ludism is often suicide. But the problem resides not in “games”, rather in the average interpretation of “ludus” and its subsequent level fragmentation, high-score display, power-up aids, and so many other features that permeate the majority of videogames – there is a place and a time for everything, and that’s the hardest lesson to learn, it seems.

    I haven’t quite given up on games – pure and abstract games – as a means of expression of art and emotion. Games needn’t be fun or entertaining – I know Solitaire wasn’t entirely about fun, at least. If fruition comes from videogames so does it come from art; And even art can be about fun and entertainment. Even fun is commendable. Not this moronic “videogame fun”; but the Buster Keaton movie fun and laughter, for instance. There is a place for everything, even in videogames.

    The root problem, I’ve began to think some time ago, is (the palpable lack of) balance.

  2. “video-games still aren’t able to convey madness, loss, nostalgia, hope, aging, infancy, memory, love, longing, or any of the other complex dimensions”

    Really? Maybe its me that is overly sentimental… but I have shed a tear or two at some point in many of my gameplays. As much as I didn’t like some stuff in MGS4, I wasn’t thinking “ohh, that is just some textures, triangles and pixels on the screen to convey the ilusion of a scene” during the microwave scene, it felt pretty real. I don’t think “that’s graphite pressed on a surface” when I watch a drawing, or “that’s an armonic way of combining different waves” while listen to music…

    I agree that “games hasn’t reach his Citizen Kane” (yes, here it goes back at you), meaning something so great of an experience everyone (even no-gamers) can awe and see that this is not just a technological toy… But it’s always getting closer to that… The language is still new and there are still many experimentation going. Sure, it is far more likely to found it on the independent side than on the commercial side, but when isn’t? Sure, games will always have the fun stigma to them (it is hard not to talk about them without the words “games” and “gameplay” present there, with the meanings they have since before videogames), the same way they had the “this is for kids” stigma before its generation grow…

    Maybe the answer is not to discard the word “fun” as if it were an insult to our inteligence, some mindless form of self-complacency, an adrenaline and testosterone rush, but something with a broader meaning (there are many reasons why the brain produces endorphin). I sure enjoyed some of the moments in Bioshock, when the game presented a lush and decayed vision of a utopian underwater city; or some of the creepyness of Silent Hill or Resident Evil. Were they “fun”? Not in the traditional sense, but yes… Were they enjoyable? Sure, and I think no one would play videogames if they didn’t enjoy it on some level. But the feelings those moments (and a hundred others) had on me could be better associated with fear, loneliness, discovery and claustrofobic than with just excitement.

    Let me ask you back: Did you enjoyed flower? Even when there was no adversary to compite with, no timer to beat, no enviromental hazard to avoid or no way of failing (in the traditional way)? Is it unfair to say you had fun with it?

    • ruicraveirinha
    • July 16th, 2009

    @Bruno

    As to your solitaire experience, I can only imagine why you felt that way. I guess that to do so, the creators had to escape the domain of straightforward entertainment. By definition, they had to use non-gamey devices to convey the emotion you felt. The rules of the game had to be oriented to a different goal, other than competition and challenge.

    As to lack of balance… sure, I totally agree with you on that. You know I love “games”. I want ‘ludism’ to be an integrate part of the medium, but we need, and can achieve, much more than that in this medium. We have achieved happy middles with Ueda and other designers, but we need to go further. For while that other half remains untouched, games will never really reach their true artistic potential.

    @Coyote

    You have shed a tear while playing a game? Or have you shed a tear while watching a game? Two very different things my friend. Most games have accomplished emotional expressiveness through the semiotic languages of other mediums, namely cinema and literature. But I’m referring to interaction, and actual game-play. Has any piece of interactive design made you cry, if yes, please tell me which. I want to play that.

    “Let me ask you back: Did you enjoyed flower? Even when there was no adversary to compite with, no timer to beat, no enviromental hazard to avoid or no way of failing (in the traditional way)? Is it unfair to say you had fun with it?”

    Flower was great, but it was still a game: there wasn’t a timer to beat, but there were flowers to collect, and a goal to achieve. Flower is a happy middle between a “true” game and a form of interactive art. It has a bit of emotional expressiveness and a bit of a fun-oriented experience. But that isn’t enough, because when you orient a game towards a certain type of experience you end up losing the other. There is always compromise. For example, in my opinion, “ICO” was more emotionally expressive than “SotC”, but that was at the cost of being less of a game, and consequently, less “fun” (in the strictest of senses).

    “The language is still new and there are still many experimentation going.”

    There is? So little has been done so far, and even less seems to be brewing today. I think the dictatorship of fun has clouded everyone, and people have come to accept that dogma blindly, as there is very little pursuit of emotional expressiveness in video-games.

    Notice that enjoyment, fun and entertainment are very ambiguous terms. When I use the term fun, I’m specifically referring to that subconscious feeling of gratitude that comes from games. But we can extract enjoyment in many other ways. A sad drama might make you cry and still be an arresting experience, because it makes you feel powerful emotions that you can relate to. And that isn’t fun, it’s something else entirely.

    Cheers guys!

  3. Ok, you got me there. Even when I can say I had experience an array of emotions through gameplay (Silent Hill, Bioshock and Metal Gear Solid as just examples, which I can’t say are just “fun”, but definitely “enjoyable”), I can’t say I cry over gameplay (doesn’t mean it doesn’t exists, just that I haven’t found it). I still preffer the word enjoyment over fun, though…

    I think you are being too strict about games when you say “when you orient a game towards a certain type of experience you end up losing the other”. There is always the intenction of an artist, and that is not really to compromise. When you see Goya’s 3rd of May, there is an array of feelings you may felt, but I am pretty sure excitement is not one of them. The same can be said of Michelangelo’s Sistine chapel inspiring arousal. If you do, there is probably something wrong with you, or with the skills of the artist… Artists will always try to inspire a certain feeling or experience…

    And I think there is uncatered potential in games. As I said on a previous post, it would be a grim world if we say: this is as far as it can be gone, everything is invented. I guess if you are feeling fatalist right now, there is not much I can say to it, but I think there has being changes in the medium since the atari ages up to now (beyond the available tools). Maybe I won’t see games’ Citizen Kane, but consider that it took films industry 40 years to reach that point… Truth to be told, there is more potential to find it in the independent side than the commercial, but that can also be said about music or movies.

    • Goro Ono
    • July 16th, 2009

    I wouldn’t say gameplay has made me cry (that would probably involve some misplaced REZ vibrator), but certainly gameplay has instilled emotions in me. From the quiet wanderings through Shenmue where intricate details shine, to every kick that pushed Aggro forward, and every stab to a colossus, or figuring out a puzzle in Braid or defeating a hard boss, games can most certainly be very moving through gameplay.
    In fact, it is in these small little details of gameplay that a large part of my enjoyment in playing videogames derives.

    I’m sure tgc has some good ideas and I’d love to see what they have in mind.

    • ruicraveirinha
    • July 16th, 2009

    @ Coyote

    “And I think there is uncatered potential in games.”

    I never said the opposite, quite on the contrary, all this rant is precisely because the potential exists, but few are willing and capable of fulfilling it.

    @Goro Ono

    “From the quiet wanderings through Shenmue where intricate details shine, to every kick that pushed Aggro forward, and every stab to a colossus, or figuring out a puzzle in Braid or defeating a hard boss, games can most certainly be very moving through gameplay.”

    There are two different sets of experiences you mention. First, the sense of satisfaction and intricate pleasure that comes with the solving of a puzzle or the defeat of a boss-like creature, like a colossus – that’s “ludic” entertainment. They’re emotions, sure, but they’re very low-level and with very little range, hence the limited expressiveness of ludism and, consequently games (in the strictest of senses).
    As to what you felt in “Shenmue”, and your relationship with Aggro and the stab of a colossus in “SotC”, I believe those are great examples of genuine emotions that were actually translated through games. These are the happy mediums that are already treading the unbeaten path I speak of. However, these were small steps, small emotions, and small ideas, that unfortunately are still far from the complex weave of a “Citizen Kane”. Moreover, those emotions were downplayed by a sea of repetitive actions and competitive cognitive stimuli that consistently numbed your brain’s higher functions. That’s the way “games” work, there’s no working around that part.

    Point being: we need to push further away from “fun”, and delve deeper into the emotional spectrum. We need to recognize the wrongs of the approaches of past years, and start looking for new ways of conveying ideas, messages and emotions through games’ interaction. I also believe there is still a very long road ahead to journey through; I am merely fatalist because so few have recognized the errors of the past, and fewer still have started looking for that golden chimera of video-games.

    Cheers Guys!

    P.S. I love it that we’re actually getting to discuss serious subjects on a games blog. Despite the rushed, sometimes brash nature of these daily blogs, I am pretty glad with your reactions, and with the ideas you are debating. It’s great to know that someone is actually making the effort of reflecting about these complex matters, and its numerous consequences for this medium we so cherish. Thanks a lot for all your comments!

  4. the sense of satisfaction and intricate pleasure that comes with the solving of a puzzle or the defeat of a boss-like creature, like a colossus – that’s “ludic” entertainment.

    If you believe in this, you truly missed the whole point of the game. If you feel pleasure from defeating a Colossus on Shadow of the Colossus then there’s something REALLY wrong with your personality and system of values 😉

    Yeah you sure like the debate. I think it’s too much for me but I do my share to keep the fire burning here if you know what I mean. Cheers buddy!

    • ruicraveirinha
    • July 17th, 2009

    “If you believe in this, you truly missed the whole point of the game. If you feel pleasure from defeating a Colossus on Shadow of the Colossus then there’s something REALLY wrong with your personality and system of values ;)”

    I think Colossus’ greatest nuance is the way in which it subtly twists that ludic sense of achievement that comes with another goal obtained, in order to make a point about the game’s message.

    On one hand, all the aesthetic and narrative assets point towards you committing a wrongful, heinous, amoral deed, but on the other, the ‘ludic’ paradigm of the game-play conveys the opposite message: you become frustrated when you can’t kill the colossus, high during the actual combat and piercing of the Colossus weak points, and sense a great achievement when you get to finally kill them. Ueda surely knew players would feel that way, as he employed that subconscious form of competitive stimuli. But he was devious and very clever in the way he related that to the story he was trying to tell, by using it as a antithesis of what he wanted the player to realize. Furthermore, with his insidious use of game-play, he managed to establish an interesting form of identification of the player with the character, by not allowing the player to fully reflect on his actions before its consequences were fully known. The inevitability of the confrontation with the colossus is another sign of this logic.

    But “SotC” is king, we all know that, right? The sad part is that Ueda can only create two games per decade, whilst the rest of the medium’s creators stay put in between.

    As to the debate, I like people to think and learn, and rare is the occasion when they do so, when you tell them what they want to hear. Ideological confrontation is a great way to get people thinking outside the box, and to put them face to face with their own beliefs, eventually leading to further questioning and (who knows?) enlightenment.

  5. Going back on topic, I think Tale of Tales’ The Path was probably one of the best examples of being able to put aside that “sea of repetitive actions”, making it less of a game, but more of an essay on what interactive multimedia can accomplish.

    But you’ve already discussed it in your review so no need to go into that now.

    I do like these debates, congratulations !

  6. Interactive Multimedia is a nice way to put it.

    • ruicraveirinha
    • July 17th, 2009

    It’s certainly more adequate than the term Realtime Art 😉

  7. Realtime art is very adequate as well. 😛

    • ruicraveirinha
    • July 17th, 2009

    No.

  8. Neither is pretty “adequate”… Interactive Multimedia sounds pretty undefined (it could be also be some special features in a DVD). And Realtime Art is even more vague (and inaccurate)

    That kinds of remainds me when comic books started being called graphical novels, just because comics were associated with kids stuff, and writers wanted to feel more “mature”. I guess under that light we should keep the “videogames” tag, at least is not snob.

    Anyways, I always enjoy mature debates…

  9. You’re sticking to the connotations of the terms, Coyote. Interactive multimedia is as accurate as you’ll get for a great majority of what we traditionally call “videogames”.

    Realtime art is perfect for Tale of Tales because it emphasizes their philosophy of games strictly using real-time graphics and sound – and of course, the fact that they consider them to be art. It’s not just a definition, it’s a movement not unlike “dada”, “por art” or “dogma”.

    We’re beating a “comment” record here in MetaGame… 16 already?

  10. I guess I preffer Interactive Multimedia over Realtime Art, because, as you said, it is more accurate to the whole spectrum of videogames, without the word “game”.

    Realtime Art might be good for Tale of Tales example, but not for a lot more… Besides, to use the word “art” to name a medium that still tries to justify itself as an art form feels more like a buzz word and is kind of snob (and redundant).

    Cheers

  11. Just to clear it up: the term derives from their Real-Time Art Manifesto. It’s the ideal they pursue in their creations while I don’t think they’re presumptuous to a point of labeling their own games as “art” – no Sir, not them. They do try very hard to respect that set of principles they created for themselves as well as any other interested party.

    I do, however, think the term applies to a part of what they’ve created so far.

    Cliffy B. is snob. Tale of Tales is for real.

    Ta-ta! 🙂

    • Kyusil
    • October 3rd, 2009

    Returning to take a peek at your blog after a year away. I’d like to share some things, some reactions to what you’ve written on this subject. I’m young, and I’m not an intellectual, and I probably haven’t played too many games you think have any value, but perhaps I’ll contribute something valid here.

    I have had two dreams in my life that are unforgettable. Not because of the content, or the context within my life, but because of the pure, absolute feeling of flight-like freedom I experienced. Upon waking up and reflecting on these dreams, I realized I had experienced that sense of limitlessness probably twice before in my waking life– once, as a young child, running through a field of tall grass, and secondly, my first time running (virtually) through Hyrule Field in Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time.

    This in-game experience had no relation to Ocarina’s (rather feeble) storyline; the polygonal visuals didn’t blow me away; the music contributed, I concede, but a silent landscape would have had the same effect. It had to be the interactive element at this moment in the game that evoked such a beautiful emotion from me. In a game that does not show significant progressiveness by many an art critic’s perspective! I had no interest in going on to defeat bosses, nor any fear of being killed by the nighttime monsters of the field, so long as I could continue to run through it.

    Many years later, I would say my motive for buying video games is generally what the developers intend for it to be for each individual game. Oftentimes I am pleasantly rewarded with something more: killing enemies in battle provokes thoughts about the moral implications of the deed; oftentimes the setting of a game will prompt me to research and wonder and speculate; I find myself bemusedly asking aloud, “how on earth did they get it to do that!”. Sometimes the rewards are social: something I can share with my parents, something that prompts a conversation leading to a new friendship. And these experiences bring me back to reflecting on what I’m playing, always, always, always.

    Having fun with a game is not wrong, low, or destructive. Nor is a game developer wanting to create something wide-reaching but not particularly deep. Demographic expansion is something the industry needs at this point, and if it ever wants to create art for the medium on a grand scale. Remember, Charlie Chaplin had to make moviegoers laugh before Orson Welles could astound any of them with Citizen Kane.

    Speaking of which! You chalk most games’ abilities to evoke emotion up to the individual aspects aside from the interactive portion: the storyline, characters, music, visuals, etc. But, isn’t film, a medium that you do consider artistic and evocative, simply another method of similar composition? The script is technically separate from the score is technically separate from the photography. When it is weaved together in our eyes, it is able to evoke the emotion it was intended to evoke. This ability of a film is not carried out solely by one individual element: it’s all of them working together. Why isn’t the same true when the interactive element is added? I can’t say the power of Citizen Kane was brought purely by its cinematography, though that is a big part of the film; why must the emotional power of a game be measured purely by how the interactivity carries it through? It is naive and largely untrue to say that the emotional resonance of a game starts and stops during the cinema sequences, and is in no way carried on through and enhanced by the interactive portions.

    Ultimately I believe it is of utmost importance to remember: you really cannot define art, can’t say what is inherently evocative and what is not. These things are so subjective and particular to each individual. A tiny flower peeking out of the pavement may bring someone to tears just as well as the best exploration of human nature. A true artist, I believe, must always allow himself or herself to find beauty or fulfillment of some kind in every experience, without censorship or shame. Many gamers would label that field as a structure, or even a nuisance, as I explored every inch of it in wonder.

    • ruicraveirinha
    • October 3rd, 2009

    Well first up, Kyusil, many thanks for your comment. Though I am not in agreement with your views, your reasons are sound, and you explained yourself in a pondered and thoughtful manner… unlike so many others 😉

    Well, unto my replies.

    Your experience with “Zelda” is interesting to me, for one special reason. Perhaps I am over-analyzing your words, but it wasn’t the game proper in “Zelda” which made you feel free, was it? I get the idea that it was the sense of spatial freedom and exploration which made you… ‘feel’ something. “Ocarina”, as a game of swash buckling and puzzle-solving, is a trivial pastime. Perhaps you disagree, but that is my view. But we can agree that in its capacity to transport you into a living world, it is pure bliss, right? Video Games have long become the artistic medium of excellence in terms of conveying space and physics. Simple kinetic actions – walking, running, flying – are already handled perfectly by current computational models, and coupled with aesthetic assets which can generate credible and beautiful virtual spaces, you actually get the sense that you’re *there*. It is the concept of virtual architecture which best identifies video games’ crowning achievement: the spatial metaphor. Sadly, I don’t think it is a particularly effective one in the conveying of emotion. “Feeling” free is not the same as feeling joyous or happy, or angry or mad, sad or sympathetic. Emotion is a complex matter, and though games hint at emotions, they are far from excelling at evoking them.

    “Having fun with a game is not wrong, low, or destructive.”

    I agree with you. Fun is not a crime. If I gave that impression, than I apologize. But fun, mindless fun, emotionless fun, is something which we feel when playing a game of pool, smoking, discussing, or playing soccer. None of these activities we are inclined to call art, nor are we to call artists to those who invented soccer. Art is something much more complex and elusive, for which fun is no sufficient condition. What I’m trying to say, is that games’ problem is not the eliciting of fun. It is their inability (so far) to go way beyond that.

    “Nor is a game developer wanting to create something wide-reaching but not particularly deep. Demographic expansion is something the industry needs at this point, and if it ever wants to create art for the medium on a grand scale.”

    I disagree. Video games are no longer unaccepted in society. If there were problems in getting certain age groups to buy into video games, the Wii certainly took care of it. A recent news article stated that 73% of UK citizes play games. Demographic expansion is a thing of the past. We are at a different, equally as crucial point. We are at the point in which video games either became an established art form, or a hedonistic pastime. The difference between the two depends mostly on the will of both gamers and game designers. Do they want serious, mature games, yes or no? By the 1940’s, cinema was already regarded as an art form by many, and so many of the movies from that age are beautiful still today. By comparison, in 2010, comic books still aren’t accepted as an art form. They have a few creators that stand out, but the majority of the publications are still Spider and Bat men. Video games are swinging between these two, very different realities. They are already 40 years old, commercially huge, and yet, artistically poor. Tic, toc, tic, toc, the clock is ticking, tic, toc…

    “Remember, Charlie Chaplin had to make moviegoers laugh before Orson Welles could astound any of them with Citizen Kane.”

    To compare Charlie Chaplin to “fun” in video games is uncautious. In his movies, Charlie Chaplin tackled bravely many of the social and existentialist problems of his time: poverty, capitalism, love, death, hitler’s germany, you name it, he addressed it. Even those video games which I admire as art, are sorely lacking when compared. It’s true, his movies were funny, and Video games are fun (not the same, by the way). But while he was talking about real subjects – the human condition, politics, emotion – video games are talking about spiky haired heroes and macho warriors. There’s your difference.

    “It is naive and largely untrue to say that the emotional resonance of a game starts and stops during the cinema sequences, and is in no way carried on through and enhanced by the interactive portions.”

    I agree heartily. If you read my reviews, you’ll see a great deal of care concerning narrative and aesthetic. But the problem is that if games can’t make their interactive dimension powerful and relevant enough in their semiotic discourse, than why should we bother with them? Film is much more advanced in audio-visual storytelling, so why play video games? For video games to be an art form, artists must learn to use interaction in meaningful ways, for that is all that can distinguish the medium from its peers. The spatial metaphor is already one of those ways. The most important, so far. But it isn’t enough. Especially, when used only in ordinance with “ludic” or game like interactivity.

    “Ultimately I believe it is of utmost importance to remember: you really cannot define art, can’t say what is inherently evocative and what is not.”

    Indeed. But, and I am aware this will sound terribly arrogant and self-centered, I *know* I am right. And deep down in every conscious gamer’s heart, they know it too. That is why they cannot admit it. Games are so powerful in their grasp, so captivating and alluring, it is impossible to resist them. They entertain like nothing else, they are a powerful drug, an escapist dream built with sylicon and projected into pure light and sound. How can they not be art if we love them so? But when you’re playing a game, try to remember how you feel and think like when watching a great movie or reading a great book… and then you will wake up to the reality of how different it is… you’ll understand that a game is just a game. Here’s hoping it someday becomes much more than just that.

    Cheers!

    P.S. I tried not to make this very large, but I apparently wasn’t able to. So much to say and so little time and space. Sorry!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: