A couple of things come to mind when reading the various opinions posted here. Of course I have my own two lunars but first...
RPGS are NOT cars, soups, utensils, the latest Madonna video etc. They are RPGs and I am of the opinion that they are based reviewed in the same voice as they were written? Heh? What is th Poli sci boy saying? Just this, every form of entertainment has its own frequency. Music differs from literature which differs from Home Invasion shows. You get the picture. SO RPGs should be taken in the context of the RPG frequency...
I am sure I am shooting the NPLAHVZG handbook (Holt Handbook when I went to SSU) when I say this and I preface it with I am not an English major: A Review IS a book report. I would think its more accurate to say a Book Report is a form of review. Now that been said, unless your studying Shatter Zone in your High School Freshman English, its not a very good format for a Review.
Ok so who should not write reviews? In my opinion? Enemies of the Company/Genre/Philosophy behind the game. I also think Playtesters should not write Reviews, one reason I stopped writing a review of a friend's game is well I helped design the damn thing. I could give a nice marketing book report but not a Review. I suppose specific Playtest Reviews are a different subject but ultimately do they have much meaning because its not the end product your reviewing? Well open for debate I suppose.
If you hate D&D et all, as has been mentioned by others etc don't review it. I see a great many authors belaboring the point that its "another fantasy game". Ok fine, review some nice Hard Sci-Fi for me. Obviously if you had a negative attitude towards the game and reading it turned you around, that might be a worthy review. Finally if you wrote the book, game etc, stick to advertising your game and NOT reviewing it.
Ok now we come to what has over the years for me become rather annoying. Its a pretentious attitude towards STYLE. Especially the style a game/supplement is written in. I had an editor recently mention bad grammar about a piece of dialogue I had written. I said, in good gramar (something new for me, good grammar) that its dialogue and thus has no need to be grammatically correct. I honestly think that some reviewers sit down with a red marker and note" "Had comma beind 'but' hmm bad editing". Now clearly some people are more qualified to review grammar, spelling etc... and some reviewers have no room to speak, but if the a weak editing process when it comes to periods and comma use DOES NOT RUIN THE FUNDAMENTAL FUN ie RPG frequency, of the book then why mention it as a major factor? Homer may have been a great verbal storyteller but as a writer he could have been a nightmare. The point is we are not trying to learn English from these, we are looking to be entertained and perhaps enlightened by the work in question.
par example...
"Did you like the first Star Wars?"
"Yeah it rocked! BEst of the three even though the graphics sucked."
Loud Slap
"Did you like the first Star Wars?"
"Yes..."
Game supplement X set out to entertain, add rules to an existing game, whatever. Did it accomplish this? Yes or no? In your opinion of course.... Ok well then who cares if it was not perfectly grammatical.
Although many reviewers do seperate mechanics like grammar from Rules and Usefulness etc and thats certian an acceptable way to do it.
As for the style of reviews? Thats much more difficult to pen down because RPG players are a notoriously irreverant bunch but also, as we can all attest to, there is a large diversity of culture and opinion in our Industry. No matter how you present it, someone is going to bitch n moan.
Well I have rambled on enough at this point and I am sure there are those who wil take exception with what I have written. This turned out a bit more negative then I intended but I suppose its more about what not to do more then what to do.
[Edit: When I say Playtest above it is meant those who truly play it in the pre-finished stage, not those trying it out AFTER the game is finished.]
SMH
ADGBoss
__________________
-We are all Sauron under the skin
-To a New yorker like you, a Hero is some sort of weird sandwich, not some nut who takes on 3 tigers...- Oddball
www.azuredragon.com
Originally posted by Steven Howard
I don't believe I advised you to exclude all factual information about the product from your review, nor did I advise trying to predict the reader's opinion. All I'm saying is that if the review can give the reader a vivid and accurate image of the experience of playing the game, then it's done its job. Telling me that Chapter 3 is Character Creation, Chapter 7 is Combat, and Chapter 10 is GM's Advice doesn't really help with that.
But it does tell you what's in the book. If you are unable to go to your FLGS and browse through a copy, you'll need to know this.
Quote:
Also, I think it's very weird that you're saying these two things in the same post:[list=1][*] You don't have to play a game in order to review it; and[*]You can't review a game the same way you'd review a novel because games are meant to be played, not read.[/list=1] [/B]
First, a game is not totally incomprehensible til one plays it. You can read the rules, read the examples (if they're there) and get an idea of how the game works, maybe even roll a few dice by yourself just to make sure you followed everything. Therefore, you do not need to play a game in order to understand it enough to review it. Obviously, it won't be a playtest review, but if one says that it isn't right at the start then what's the problem?
Second, a novel is just something to be read - the reader is not actively involved in it. An RPG - especially a core book - also has artwork, style and complexity issues to consider, utility to GM and Players, as well as editing and so on. I don't think that any of these specifically require you to actually play the game to be able to judge fairly.
Furthermore, I think if you actually play the game then there's a danger that you may misinterpret some issues that came up in the running of the game - was the GM any good, how did the players interact with eachother, was the adventure any good, etc - as something that's directly related to the product when it's really entirely down to the people you're playing with. Granted, this might not come up that often but there's still the risk I think.
And usually the first thing that someone who buys an RPG does is read it, not play it - playing generally comes after they've read through the rules and feel like they can handle running or playing the game. So why not write the review in a way that helps them get a handle on the game while they're reading? Sorta like appealing to the first impression, I guess. This is especially true in this case because I'd be reviewing the book as soon as I got it, after I've read through it and formulated an opinion on the whole thing. (I'm not sure if I explained myself well there, but there you go. )
Last edited by Evil Dr Ganymede; 04-14-2003 at 10:52 PM..
Originally posted by Evil Dr Ganymede It's probably been asked before, but has anyone got any guidelines as to what sort of things to put into a review to make it as informative and useful as possible?
Originally posted by Frank Sronce Actually, I'd say that the chapter-by-chapter breakdown is a good way to start doing reviews.
I like it as long as that's not all there is to the review.
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank Sronce You should mostly talk about what you liked and what you didn't.
I think reviewers should most talk about facts. Then they can fill in the cracks between facts with subjective commentary. I also throw in an Overall section to my reviews where I get nice and subjective.
1. Specifics make any writing more concrete and thus **usually** entertaining.
2. Specifics work well with the "One good thing / One bad thing" suggestion. (Good suggestion!)
3. Specifics will pad your review, satisfying the "I only read reviews with XXX number of words" audience. (; Man, when I was reviewing that 23-page product, I was quoting entire paragraphs...
Apparently I timed out last night (or spaced out). That NPC post signed -G. was me.
I'll come down on the "you don't need to play it to review it" side. It can help, but it can also hurt. I'm thinking in particular of a playtest review where the reviewer had not actually READ the book -- just played in a session run by a newbie GM. You can see the pitfall there, right? A lousy GM can make any game look bad, just like a bad driver can make any car unsafe, just like (INSERT YOUR LEAST FAVORITE SYSTEM) might look like a pretty damn good game if you played it at a convention and Jonathan Tweet or RDL was running it.
The book is the book and the game is the game. The book helps create the game, but it can only help. You can review it as a book, you can review how much it helps, but reviewing an individual session can (at its worst) be as useless as reviewing an individual snowflake.
Concerning reviews with chapter by chapter descriptions, the Evil Dr. claimed that:
Quote:
But it does tell you what's in the book. If you are unable to go to your FLGS and browse through a copy, you'll need to know this.
I live in Brazil and most of my gaming purchases are made online so I can't browse the book in my FLGS. Still, I believe that a detailed chapter by chapter book description have no place in a review. Reading the publisher abstract is more than suficient to know what the book covers anyway. When reading reviews, I want to know about opinions. The best reviewers are those that have similar opinions to the reader or highlights the important aspects of the product in such way that the reader will know if it will be of his likeness or not.
There are some game reviewers that have opinions similar to mine but write long detailed reviews. I usually skip their text and go directly to the last lines to read his final evaluation. A good review should capture the attention of the reader and, regardless of the reviewer opinion, provide a good estimative if the reader will like it or not.
I usally write capsule reviews. That means I didn't play the game in the book before writing the review. I've been criticized because of this.
Now, a game writer writes this: "The book is the book and the game is the game. The book helps create the game, but it can only help. You can review it as a book, you can review how much it helps, but reviewing an individual session can (at its worst) be as useless as reviewing an individual snowflake." His name is Greg Stolze.
I'll put this quote in all future reviews. Maybe it will keep the flies away.
Originally posted by Ron Reading the publisher abstract is more than suficient to know what the book covers anyway.
I dunno, the abstract might say "new classes and prestige classes" while a break down style reivew might go "Chapter 3, Classes, presents four new Classes and 2 prestige classes."
That's much more useful to me. A good review breaking it down chapter by chapter, particularly for larger books, I find very useful. Of course a good review will do more than that, and say if the bits are any good or not any why.
Originally posted by smascrns I'll put this quote in all future reviews. Maybe it will keep the flies away.
I kinda doubt it since there were a lot of problems with your reviews.
Which sort of brings me onto what I think is a good review technique. While nobody is going to be objective, a good reviewer does recognise people have other tastes.
So rather than just saying "this book has a mechanic of type X(1), and that is bad, so the game is too" something more like "I don't like systems with mechanics of type X, and in this one its pretty hard to ignore. Still if its your sort of thing it looks pretty well done".
The first approach basically makes a lot of the review useless to people with different tastes, the second allows people to judge more for themselves.
1- assuming X here isn't a mechaic for peeing or something equally FATAL-esque but something along the lines of drama/social/personality type that some people like and some don't.
Now I don't consider myself as a fully knowledgable reviewer - lord only knows I often don't follow my own advice. But here are my views on how to write a review... take it or leave it as you please.
First of all a review must tell whether the reader should buy the book or not. That's WHY you're writing a review. More than anything else, the point of a review is to state if a book is worth the purchase.
This means that it should give a clear idea of what the book contains without giving away everything. This means that chapter-by-chapter is NOT the sign of a good review. As someone else mentioned... that is a book report - something quite different.
A review can contain your own opinions, but these need to be clearly defined as opinion and not fact. Generally I recommend leaving any opinions until the end of the review. Why have them? Because a lot of people will read reviews written by reviewers who think like they do. Basically, if Reviewer X - who seems to think like me - says the product didn't wow him then it is likely to not wow me either.
Opinions should be kept relevant.
Corebooks - when writing a review for a core rulebook, try to playtest the system before reviewing it. I have found that despite years of experience roleplaying with different systems, sometimes what I think works doesn't do so in practice. If you don't have the time to playtest - and those of us who have to review within certain deadlines simply cannot always playtest a game - then clearly state that your opinions on the system are based on assumptions drawn from playing similar systems. Show your knowledge of other game systems and people will be more forgiving.
Supplements - these can be done capsule style. It's next to impossible to "playtest" a lot of splatbooks and setting books.
General points I'd suggest would be to focus on:
a) Style and Layout - how well is the book written, illustrated and laid out. Is it easy to read? Easy to find necessary rules and details? How useful is the index? Is the book easy on the eye? Learn about stylistic practices so that you can better judge a products design.
b) Setting and Fiction - How detailed is the gameworld? What is it about the game that draws the most attention? Is it good? Is it bad? Is the fiction well-written or amatuer? Why did you think this? Does the fiction help to capture the feel of the setting or is it contrary to the rules.
c) Rules - How well does the game play? What is the system like? Who would like playing this game? What problems or flaws exist?
d) Goals - consider what the goals of the writers/designers were. Did the game meet these goals? This is VERY important. There is no point reviewing a Cinematic Action Adventure game and complaining that it didn't have enough realism in it. If it isn't your style of game, mention this and point out that the game meets its goals but will only appeal to gamers who like that kind of game and that you didn't really find it to your liking. DO NOT SAY "This game sucked because it wasn't my kind of game." Say "I did not enjoy this game because it isn't my style of game. It meets its goals well but will only appeal to people who like this kind of product."
NEVER write out the full rules system. Just give enough to show how flexible, complex etc the system is. Remember, the book has all the info - you just need to tell enough to help a reader decide whether they want to buy it or not.
As usual these are not set in stone, but I find them useful guidelines to follow. Another great source is this site:
Basically use the suggestions for historical books as a framework. Thanks to Marc Vezina from DP9 for that great site.
Above all things do not try too hard to be sarcastic, ironic or witty. If you can just roll that stuff off naturally - great. But generally it is not a good idea unless you have really found your "voice". Usually sarcasm and irony come across as pretentious, condescending or insulting to the reader.
Happy writing!
Conan a.k.a. Reviewer at large.
__________________ PSN: Evinshir - Little Big Planet - Rock Band 1 - Burnout Paradise - Resident Evil 5
Originally posted by NPC Jeremy Chapter by chapter breakdowns can be useful, depending on the book being reviewed.
Concur. Sometimes the book is organized in a way that makes an equal amount of sense for both using and analyzing it. In these cases, when you break the book down into bite-sized chuncks that are worth commenting on, you will have a similar arangement.
In some cases, this rule is worth breaking. Sometimes the book has chapter or section arrangements at odds with its central concepts, and some central concepts are strung across several chapters. This is especially the case in books that have both player and GM sections in them. In these cases, it is often prudent to "yank" the core concept out and lay it bare.
That said, I have to shake my fist at those who deride using the chapter layout. If the publisher has organized their book sensibly, it will already be layed out in the same chunks that a reviewer would divide the book into when comenting on them. Further, knowing the content of the book is half of what the review is about. I want to know why I should buy Bow & Blade instead of Quintessential Elf, Heroes of High Favor: Elves, and Eldest Sons. What is different about them? Which has the sort of content I am looking for?
Originally posted by Sangrolu
That said, I have to shake my fist at those who deride using the chapter layout. If the publisher has organized their book sensibly, it will already be layed out in the same chunks that a reviewer would divide the book into when comenting on them. Further, knowing the content of the book is half of what the review is about. I want to know why I should buy Bow & Blade instead of Quintessential Elf, Heroes of High Favor: Elves, and Eldest Sons. What is different about them? Which has the sort of content I am looking for?
I have to whole heartedly disagree here. If people want to see the chapter-by-chapter listing they can open the book in their FLGS. What people are usually looking for in a review is an idea of what is good and what is bad about the book and a general idea of the contents. If they want to know everything, they can buy the danged thing!
A chapter-by-chapter breakdown shows that the reviewer is not looking at the book as a whole product. Sure - when you're preparing a review you should go through each chapter. And you can even write your review and move through the chapters - especially when there is a big stylistic difference between the chapters. But it is not good to do as a rule.
Structurally a review should have three core parts:
Introduction: This should establish what the product's goals were. It should also give a general impression about the rest of the review - if it will be favourable or not.
Body: This should cover what was good and bad. A chapter-by-chapter breakdown is a bit excessive. Most people don't care about all the details. They just want the highlights. What makes it worth the purchase and/or what are its flaws. Remember, if they buy the book they'll be able to see the specifics there. A BAD reviewer tells all. A GOOD reviewer tells everything that needs to be known to make an informed decision.
Conclusion/Summary: This is where you state if the product met its goals and maybe give some thoughts or opinions on what made it good and bad - ALSO this is where you can add your own opinion on how the product could have been improved.
Conan
__________________ PSN: Evinshir - Little Big Planet - Rock Band 1 - Burnout Paradise - Resident Evil 5
I have to whole heartedly disagree here. If people want to see the chapter-by-chapter listing they can open the book in their FLGS. What people are usually looking for in a review is an idea of what is good and what is bad about the book and a general idea of the contents. If they want to know everything, they can buy the danged thing!
True, they <u>can</u>... But when I write a review, I try to give the reader what <u>I</u> would like to know about the product before buying it, telling them what I think about those facts as I go. The more "What about...?" questions I get in the review forum, the less successful I see my review.
Quote:
A chapter-by-chapter breakdown shows that the reviewer is not looking at the book as a whole product. Sure - when you're preparing a review you should go through each chapter. And you can even write your review and move through the chapters - especially when there is a big stylistic difference between the chapters. But it is not good to do as a rule.
Structurally a review should have three core parts:
Introduction: This should establish what the product's goals were. It should also give a general impression about the rest of the review - if it will be favourable or not.
Body: This should cover what was good and bad. A chapter-by-chapter breakdown is a bit excessive. Most people don't care about all the details. They just want the highlights. What makes it worth the purchase and/or what are its flaws. Remember, if they buy the book they'll be able to see the specifics there. A BAD reviewer tells all. A GOOD reviewer tells everything that needs to be known to make an informed decision.
Conclusion/Summary: This is where you state if the product met its goals and maybe give some thoughts or opinions on what made it good and bad - ALSO this is where you can add your own opinion on how the product could have been improved.
Conan
The problem is that, as has already been mentioned, a decently-organized book will already have the facts broken up in a logical manner. That makes it a little redundant to re-organize the information using one's own headers, or, worse still, using a stream of unbroken text.
And again, regarding seeing the specifics once they've bought the book: Well, those specifics are selling points. Maybe the reviewer doesn't think disconnected attributes and skills are any big deal, for example, instead just describing how well the basic mechanic works. That's great, so long as you agree with the reviewer's feelings about the rules he hasn't described.
Basically, I want to know the facts about a product along with the reviewer's observations and opinions about those facts. The more the reviewer summarizes, the more pure opinion I'm getting, and that doesn't interest me.
__________________ RPG.net Moderator
Moderator comments in red.
Challenges to moderator calls should be posted in Trouble Tickets or mailed to Admin.rpgnet @gmail.com dan.rpgnet@gmail.com Forum Rules & Guidelines
Running: ---; Prepping: Earthdawn; Playing: Buffy; Reviewing: GODSEND Agenda; Reading: Earthdawn, Corporation The hat of me know no limit! "Did you know that your reviews take on an entirely new light, if you picture them as being read aloud by Frylock, as Meatwad listens intently?" - Cith, in #rpgnet "You're more the lovable sort of odd. Like a retarded bear" - an IRL friend
Originally posted by Menchi I have to whole heartedly disagree here. If people want to see the chapter-by-chapter listing they can open the book in their FLGS.
Perhaps. But has already been stated, many people don't have that luxury.
But I don't know about you, but while pacing around in a crowded store and paging through a book, I don't get the same reading experience as when I get to sit down with it. I notice a lot more when I sit down and write a review.
I can pull the essential details out of a product much more readily when I am not being rushed. I spend hours poring through books that I review before pulling out pertinent details to cite in a review. To imply that this is less effort that paging through a product in a store is insulting.
People occasionally post ass-hatted reviews here based upon "what they have read in a store." Such reviews are derided as next to worthless for a reason. You imply you get the same experience by reading a chapter breakdown style review as you do from pagin through the book. You are, to put it bluntly, wrong.
Quote:
What people are usually looking for in a review is an idea of what is good and what is bad about the book and a general idea of the contents.
And when I wish to comment on what is good and what is bad in a book, how am I going to present those comment to you? Hmmm. Hopefully, in an organized fashion, but again, if the publisher did their job, the book is already organized and occasions where it is compelling to reorganize the information are the exception.
Quote:
A chapter-by-chapter breakdown shows that the reviewer is not looking at the book as a whole product.
Bullcrap. It shows you no such thing. It shows you that the reviewer is actually reading the product and considering all parts of it.
Quote:
Structurally a review should have three core parts:
Introduction: (...)
Body: (...)
THIS is where you break it down by chapter.
Quote:
This should cover what was good and bad. A chapter-by-chapter breakdown is a bit excessive. Most people don't care about all the details.
Speak for yourself. Many people praise me for the detail that I devote to my reviews. I suspect that you are at odds with "most people."
People want to know if there is material that they can use in their games. Glossing over the details as you advocate could lead a person to miss elements of a game that they are specifically looking for and does not say near enough about a product.
Speak for yourself. Many people praise me for the detail that I devote to my reviews. I suspect that you are at odds with "most people."
People want to know if there is material that they can use in their games. Glossing over the details as you advocate could lead a person to miss elements of a game that they are specifically looking for and does not say near enough about a product.
Firstly I am not saying gloss over the details - I am saying that you only mention the salient points. The stuff people need to know. There is no need to give a blow-by-blow recounting of the book's contents.
Secondly, I am consistently praised for writing reviews that are "succinct and to the point." I'm glad that people like your review style - and if you like to write like that, more power to you. I am stating that I disagree with your style as a rule. On occassion chapter-by-chapter is a good thing, books such as "Game of Powers" are examples of when this is helpful.
But it is not a good rule of thumb for reviewing - especially to new reviewers. Why? Because it can easily become a case of severe waffle.
IF you had read my post you would have noticed that I mentioned reviewers need to mention what makes a product worth the purchase or not worth it. That's it. A reviewer is not meant to give people all the details. Plus, the benefit of the RPGnet forum system is that readers can then query the reviewer about specifics.
As for not having the luxury? Again, you don't need to know everything in the book to make an informed purchase. Sure, there are people on RPGnet who like spending hours reading in depth reports on the contents of potential game products. But not everyone who visits this site want to read pages and pages of reviews. They want to know only the important details - What is the book about? What are the key features? Would I like it?
If they want to know more - that's what the forums are there for. That's right, not for bitching or complaining, the forums on the reviews are meant for discussion about the product being reviewed. I regularly keep an eye on all the forums connected to my reviews so that I can answer any specific questions people may ask - but a review is MEANT to be a general overview. It should give enough information to help a reader make a decision about whether they want the product or not. If you give too much information then it defeats the point of buying the book.
I know that when I buy a game, I WANT to be surprised by the cool little extras - all I expect from a review is the most important details to be mentioned. Things like - does the game work? What about it is cool/different/good? What are the highlights?
When you review a novel or a movie - you don't describe every story arc, every development. Hell you don't even describe the plot beyond the initial details. Instead you give highlights to show why the book/movie is worth reading/seeing. The same applies here.
As for the book being "logically laid out" - still doesn't mean you HAVE to write it that way. And I still feel that by doing so you're not really looking at the product as a whole package.
Conan
__________________ PSN: Evinshir - Little Big Planet - Rock Band 1 - Burnout Paradise - Resident Evil 5
I'm starting to see folks talking at cross-purposes.
Define what you mean by "review".
Is a review an overview of a product? Highlights and lowlights?
Is it a summary of the product details?
Is it a cursory analysis? An in-depth analysis?
I'm personally in favor of the "overview" definition with some summary thrown in. Anything else is icing on the cake. Analysis is definitely not required, but it seems to be what a lot of people consider a good review.
To pick a few names out of a hat (and these are strictly my perceptions based on my memory of past reviews, which I acknowledge may be faulty in a variety of ways) Seanchai's reviews are highly detail oriented without necessarily showing actual play. Dan Davenport's reviews are highly detail oriented with examples of play.
I find both types of reviews useful, but I get bored of Dan's reviews more quickly even though they're very flavorful. Seanchai's resemble book reports, but they hold my attention a bit better. My only point here is that appreciating reviews is as subjective as appreciating products themselves.
However: the worst reviews are those that simply restate what's already on or in the book, in part or whole, without a justification. People might think these are good reviews, but I'd disagree.
I don't think it's enough to key in a book's TOC just so people can see what's in the book. Advertising/promoting/presenting a book's contents is more or less the company's job, isn't it? Plus, anyone could walk into their LGS (hypothetically) and scan the book with the same results. What's the point of such a review?
I think the reviewer's function is to watchdog the company, so to speak. Is the company providing what's advertised on the back of the book? Does the TOC match the content?
Here's the bottom line:
Basic book information may be a start (title, page count, author, publisher, whatnot) so that people know exactly what product you're reviewing.
The real meat of the review is going to be the following questions. . .
1) What did the reviewer expect when s/he picked up the book? 2) Were those expectations met? Why or why not?
If you can answer those questions with a sufficient level of detail and avoid extraneous information, you'll have a good review.
EDITS: numerous minor changes
__________________ Dead of Night RPG usually KICKS 4/5 ASS!! Hey -- that could be YOUR ass!
Originally posted by Sangrolu
People want to know if there is material that they can use in their games.
Hey, I think you just crystalized for me what I, as a publisher, find unsatisfying about many RPG reviews. They are almost never critical reviews, they're...pragmatic?...reviews for lack of a better word.
That is, most RPG reviewers aren't interested in identifying what the author was trying to accomplish and evaluating the extent to which they achieved those goals. They're typically more focused on the reviewer's purely subjective evaluation of the product: The reviewer goes to great length to discuss what he liked and didn't like, what he would and wouldn't use in his game, whether he would like to play or run the game and why. To some extent, these reviews skip Goethe's first two questions and skip to the last.
Now, I can see that this type of review would be potentially very useful to the consumer. If I share the reviewer's tastes -- we're both looking for the same kinds of things in a game -- his evaluations of a given product will likely be quite instructive for me in deciding whether or not to buy it. I think this kind of review, though, is significantly less useful to the author or publisher. And really, I think that's as it should be: RPG reviews are presumably written for the benefit of the potential consumer rather than the author or publisher.
)
Linear Mode
