Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by VirusDancer

Originally posted by Axehilt

Depth is good.

Complexity isn't.  (but simplicity is.)

A good game isn't a dizzying array of complex options, it's a clearly-presented narrow set of options whose usage is layered and deep.

The rules to the greatest games of all-time tend to fit on a single sheet of paper (Chess, Go, Poker).  These games are great because their simple rules create emergent depth.

As with most other forms of design, the simplest solution is usually the best one.

If I want a bowl of chili as an appetizer, a rack of ribs and fries as the entree, a piece of blueberry cheesecake for dessert, and a Guinness to drink while eating...

If the woman I'm there with wants mozarella sticks as an appetizer, a bacon wrapped filet and a baked potato as the entree, a piece of chocolate cake with vanilla ice cream for dessert, and a sweet tea to drink while eating...

...we do not go to a taco stand.

Note that you didn't list a meal with 30+ types of food.  Every type of food you listed was there for a reason.  Each food you list served a clear, strongly-justified role.

You listed exactly as many types of food as were needed, and no more.  You didn't overcomplicate things at all.

Ideal design is as simple as absolutely necessary, and no simpler.  Each element is strongly justified, or it doesn't exist. Much like your meal.

I went with common meals - it does not mean those are the only choices.  A person could start with dessert, have a salad, and go.  There is a variety available - a complex selection.  Even in the way the meals are prepared - how is the steak going to be cooked - how is it going to be seasoned - what side will there be?  Even the baked potato - plain, sour cream and chives, cheese, brocolli, etc, etc, etc.

I used to go to Olive Garden... I did not order anything standard - I customized my selection, although the items were not listed on the menu in the way that I ordered them - they were available in the way I ordered them.  Those options would not exist if I were to go a taco stand.   The taco stand is very limited.  It's meant for a quick grab of a meal, not unlike the hot dog cart, etc, etc.

Different people are looking for different things.  In general, one used to be able to assume that those looking to play MMORPGs were looking for something.  That has changed over the years as people have come into various restaurants so they could order off the taco stand menu...

...it's not considered a good thing by those that used to enjoy the genre for being what it was.  The people that are more than happy to eat from the taco stand everywhere they go might appear happy with it - but in general, they're not the people that stay around in a MMORPG anyway - they move along to the next taco stand.

No doubt the developers invited all these folks to come play - no doubt as the years have progessed - they've designed and redesigned to attract them.

Does not change that some of us do not want to eat at taco stands...

Even going back to your example of Chess.  Yes, somebody can go to the dollar store and pick up the game.  They can go home and play it with their significant other, their parents, kids, friends, etc, etc.  Just a little friendly game.  But you also have local Chess clubs.  Additional features/systems are in place.  It is more complex.  You have school tournaments, city tournaments, state tournaments, regional tournaments, national tournaments, international tournaments... each increasingly more complex because of the additional requirements/features/systems.

The MMO was on the far end of the spectrum in complexity for computer gaming... now, not so much.

They were virtual worlds - complex systems.  Now they're little action game lobbies.

I find it odd that you point the simplicity of the rules for Chess, when it is considered a very complex game.  Sure, there are only twenty first moves, but there are well over a thousand common openings.  The manner in which you can move those sixteen pieces, where there are six different piece types - is a complex system.

Originally posted by Lawlmonster

Originally posted by Goatgod76

Wasting your time and energy trying to get most of this new generation of MMO gamers to understand there are different genres for a reason.

I'm not sure its a waste of time trying to understand the perspective of other human beings, though I will admit that I expect most anyone who would post in this thread to reply somewhat like you have (not that its a bad thing, but you could provide an opinion to add some weight to your statement).

I'll just be repeating myself for the umpteenth time, but...if you insist.

I always see the debates on here between the two different groups. Those who have played MMORPG's from the beginning (UO/EQ...or even before this with Meridian 59 and other MUD's), and those post-WoW.

Those that started at the beginning were mainly those that played MUD's and pen & paper RPG's such as Rifts, D&D, etc. MMORPG's were a very small and niche community. Sub numbers were considered successful when in as low as the 150K range. However, the communites were pretty tight knit. Sure, there were some idiots, but most straightened up failry quickly because the community sat them straight. They would adjust accordingly or be blackballed off the server because they couldn't get groups/Guilds, etc. People were helpful and friendly. Most kept to names that fit with the world in which they were playing, and RPing was even MUCH larger than it is now (also brought on by the fact the large % of players again were from P & P games).

The worlds were open for exploration, quests were quests (Especially EQ Epic weapon quests) where they were LONG and took you to multiple places at times to complete. There was no world AH, very little instant travel, no stat boards, and as far as I personally could see from most...no rush to get to "end game" (A term that didn't even exist then). it was like escaping reality and living another life, in another world, in another time period. Even if only for a few hours a day, and it was a BLAST!

Now mind you I WILL say, even as an EQ player, that EQ DID usher in the beginning of easy-mode via the Planes of Power expansion. With it it introduced a hub to travel to multiple locations nearly instantly and shrank the world size significantly. Even with EQ's world being HUGE as it was. HOWEVER...

The drastic shift towards easy-mode, and the all around extinction of what made MMORPG's stand out as a genre all of it's own was the introduction of WoW. Yes, I played WoW....from release up until the Burning Crusade's expansion. At that point I had played EQ for 5 years and was ready to try something new for a bit. I will say, it was fun...hence I wouldn't of played it as long as I said I did. But over that time playing it, I could see an obvious push more and more towards dumbing it down to push the sub numbers. And with that push, could see the decline in the quality of the community...which is what lead me away from the game in the end...along with it getting seriously boring because of the lack of a challenge. Anyways, that is a little background.

MMORPG's were first created to be live action pen and paper style RPG's for players. They were all of the things stated in the first paragraph. THIS is why they had monthly subs. They took time, effort, and team work.  It is what set them apart from console gaming.

MMORPG's now are super fast paced. You can cap in a month, sometimes less, then sit in a capital city spamming for raid groups and/or complaining there isn't enough content. Instances nearly dominate the worlds and instant travel is common...shrinking the world and making some areas useless or ghost regions void of nealry anyone. World AH's also shrink the world, making manual travel nearly pointless. Emphasis on stats seems to make a lot of players elitist psychopaths...or for some reason stuck up (Thinking they are better than other players), souring the communities.

Just WAY too much emphasis on, and a mentality of "GO GO GO! NOW NOW NOW!". This isn't what MMORPG's are suppose to be about. Again, it's why they had monthly subs...they took time. And again, this is what set them apart as a seperate genre from console gaming...where fast paced instant gratification was the design model from the beginning. Yes, I am aware things change...but MMO's are dying due to the sweeping changes taking place now, not changing them simply to be a better, upgraded version from the previous one. They are becoming console single player RPG's more and more, and less open worlds with teeming economies and communities that interact.

Of course though...I am sure this is (In my own speculation and opinion) a product of the difference in the times as well...

Then?: The internet was in it's infancy and most of us played EQ/UO on dial-up. MMORPG's were new too, so they were very crude (To today's standards). Again, most players were pen and paper types, so travel,quests, etc taking time didn't bother us much. patience was much more common.

Now?: We live in a rat race world full of instant this and instant that. Not to mention a massive technology boom. So, MMORPG's reflect that with the GO GO GO! NOW NOW NOW! mentality. Funny enough though, those that complain about people like me wanting it to shift more back towards more open world travel, WAY less dumbed down features (Give it challenge), longer quests that chain more, less instancing and instant travel, no world chat, and regional bazaars, etc are the same people (For the most part) that complain that they level too fast and have nothing to do at their beloved "end game" lol. Know why most post-WoW players don't want monthly subs? Because they don't want to pay a monthly fee to sit in their cpaital cities screaming their isn't enough to do for $15 a month!

I guess this is all in trying to say, YET AGAIN, that MMORPG's were a different genre from console games for a reason. And now they are nothing more than glorified RPG console games.

P.S. A response I see a lot, and even see in this thread..is "People don't have a lto fo time to devote to games liek this. They want to have fun with the time they do have." I can understand this...but um...then WHY aren't you playing console games? Where quick fun is the common goal? MMORPG's were meant to take time.

Another difference I guess between me and the larger majority fo the community. I find even the little accomplishments gratifying and fun (Gaining half a level, killing that tough mob, traversing a dangerous area unscaved)...where as most now need big shinies right away with as little effort put forth or they feel they have been slighted.

It's easy to get deep and complex mixed up, but there is a difference. Being deep means your game has some merit to it, but it doesn't have to be difficult to follow. The drive force of most MMOs should be the story (=deepness, meaning), and an MMO should aid the player, much like a storyteller, into its world through quests, what have you, a simple formula that has worked for games since the very beginning. It seems easy, but there are so many roads you can follow. A complex system is hard to understand. Just because something is hard to understand does not mean it is bad, but we're talking about a big group here. The MMO market is there for everyone and we can all agree that most people are dumb/do not care, therefor a ''complicated'' game will not do, at least not for the bigger crowd. The only way a system can get people to care, is by doing the actual work, and letting the players simply enjoy the adventure (=escapism). Which I honestly believe is not bad, because you are infact paying for the entertainment (or use Torrent, jerks). Sooner or later the player will realise where he/she's at and either love or hate the game for it. Take Minecraft for example: a brilliant, but very simple idea. An idea you can make thousands of different variations upon that keeps people busy. Much like Chess.

Since MMOs are a type of game people play a long time you can easily make it more complicated than other genres.

But a perfect MMO is simple when you start playing and get more and more complicated the further and more experience you get.

I think a MMO should be like chess. It is easy to learn the basics but it takes many years to master it perfectly. That way it wont turn away the noobs but still give the complexity a MMO should have.

I just don't see the modern gamer getting a game that takes a long time to even start playing, as not were uncommon in the 80s. But I also think that most MMOs makes the mistake of letting the endgame be as simple as the noob game (the first 20 or so levels). Players aren't stupid even if their attention span sometimes is low, if you add complexity as they play it will work fine.

Originally posted by Loke666

Since MMOs are a type of game people play a long time you can easily make it more complicated than other genres.

But a perfect MMO is simple when you start playing and get more and more complicated the further and more experience you get.

I think a MMO should be like chess. It is easy to learn the basics but it takes many years to master it perfectly. That way it wont turn away the noobs but still give the complexity a MMO should have.

I just don't see the modern gamer getting a game that takes a long time to even start playing, as not were uncommon in the 80s. But I also think that most MMOs makes the mistake of letting the endgame be as simple as the noob game (the first 20 or so levels). Players aren't stupid even if their attention span sometimes is low, if you add complexity as they play it will work fine.

To an extent, that is a great way of putting it.  The increasing complexity would satisfy many that are looking for increased complexity.

You start off - you have access to basic systems.  As you advance - you have access to systems with greater complexity.  As you advance further - you have access to systems with even greater complexity.

Because you the complexity increases as you advance, even though the end systems might be very complex - you have been eased into them, so they will not be as complex as they would have been had you been introduced to them from the start.

Basically, if they were like most things - you learn to crawl before you learn to walk, to walk before you learn to run...

Originally posted by Loke666

Players aren't stupid even if their attention span sometimes is low

We see this kind of broad denouncement of human beings quite often ("ADD kids" etc), but its a mistake to blame the players for decisions made by the management and simple market forces.  And it needs to stop, it's my grandpa saying "These damn kids are no good and society is doomed"--every grandpa for several thousand years has asserted exactly the same thing.

What's happened to games?  Well, a greatly expanded audience that's not entirely a bunch of first-gen gamers (consisting largely of first-gen computer owners--the geeks).  Many of them had technical skills that led them into computers at the birthing stage, and they were busily expanding the capabilities of the machines and programming, naturally.  Atypical human beings, a specialized subset, more technically saavy than the general public.

The games they designed were often for e-peenery (if you'll excuse the expression).  Overly complex, harder than they needed to be, lots of artificial gates and barriers and sheer time checks to limit the "winners" to others just like themselves.  Five percenters.

As the internet boomed and "regular people" filled the market, many of those games' producers noticed that they had a very real problem.  A player retention rate growing weaker; they'd designed a bunch of games that were not new player friendly, with learning curves too steep, barriers too high, time checks too lengthy.

Their attention spans aren't low, they're just regular people with regular lives.  The dread (horrors) "Casuals".

Market forces take over at that point--you can't keep designing for atypical human beings (some now in their 50s!) if you want to sell a lot of games.

Originally posted by CalmOceans

I know some very smart people who play MMO, one guy who worked as an engineer was horrible at the game, he could try to understand it if he wanted, but it was just a game to him so he didn't care. He left our game for a much simpler game, and he's right, because his game was much more fun. I don't play games because I want to be challenged, I don't care, I want to have fun! that is all really for me

If there's challenge or difficulty that's fine, but I don't go look for it. I played EQ by accident more than anything, I never enjoyed the challenge, I enjoyed the world and the people.  I never went like this: "I have died 10 times already, this game is awesome". I would have had my fun without dying also.

I play games to get rid of stress, not to add stress, you know.

Diffrent people diffrent things stress you and diffrent are fun or boring.

For some people, challange = fun, easy = boring and NOT fun

same with for some people, simpe = fun and for some simple = boring and not fun

I like to think in games. Not always but 80% of time I play games I need to think in. Sometimes I just want to go and kick ass, but that's rare.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Loke666

Players aren't stupid even if their attention span sometimes is low

We see this kind of broad denouncement of human beings quite often ("ADD kids" etc), but its a mistake to blame the players for decisions made by the management and simple market forces.  And it needs to stop, it's my grandpa saying "These damn kids are no good and society is doomed"--every grandpa for several thousand years has asserted exactly the same thing.

What's happened to games?  Well, a greatly expanded audience that's not entirely a bunch of first-gen gamers (consisting largely of first-gen computer owners--the geeks).  Many of them had technical skills that led them into computers at the birthing stage, and they were busily expanding the capabilities of the machines and programming, naturally.  Atypical human beings, a specialized subset, more technically saavy than the general public.

The games they designed were often for e-peenery (if you'll excuse the expression).  Overly complex, harder than they needed to be, lots of artificial gates and barriers and sheer time checks to limit the "winners" to others just like themselves.  Five percenters.

As the internet boomed and "regular people" filled the market, many of those games' producers noticed that they had a very real problem.  A player retention rate growing weaker; they'd designed a bunch of games that were not new player friendly, with learning curves too steep, barriers too high, time checks too lengthy.

Their attention spans aren't low, they're just regular people with regular lives.  The dread (horrors) "Casuals".

Market forces take over at that point--you can't keep designing for atypical human beings (some now in their 50s!) if you want to sell a lot of games.

What?!?

The developer's wouldn't make such overly simplistic games with fast paced rewards, etc if the market/playerbase wasn't screaming for it. And if anything, TODAY's MMO's are FAR MORE based on "e-peenery" than anything back then (Stat boards, ridiculously OP'ed armor and weapons/classes).

Actually, I think I'd easily fit in the 'casual' mold, but I don't think our demographic is the "problem". But when a game proves me it has depth and is worth looking into, I'll stick with it, regardless of having to solve difficult puzzles or calculating my percents. And I think there are more players like myself who feel this way about video games, among other things. The problem is those "casuals" or even "players" simply don't care or are misinformed; they'd rather have a new, better improved WoW than something original and deep, such as The Chronicles of Spellborn. That's how people work; most, while not always retarded, don't want to give a shit unless their friends give a shit. Shooters for example. Why do you think these games work so well? You pick a gun and shoot people. When I ask someone "What's the story behind Battlefield?" I always get a reply of: "I don't know, Russians?" These games will always prevail, because they're succesful that way. Does succes always equal good? Sometimes, was Big Brother an awful show? But luckily there's a handful of "casuals" like myself who still care for greatness, and that includes video games. As long as the balance remains, what gives? 

Originally posted by Goatgod76

What?!?

The developer's wouldn't make such overly simplistic games with fast paced rewards, etc if the market/playerbase wasn't screaming for it. And if anything, TODAY's MMO's are FAR MORE based on "e-peenery" than anything back then (Stat boards, ridiculously OP'ed armor and weapons/classes).

No, e-peenery simply became much more visible, once the devs realized the competitive egos of "pros" allows them to sell more games with leader boards and by giving them measuring sticks (like the Armory).  It's always been there.

Pandering to the egos of players who view themselves as "pro" is enormously profitable.  Ask any FPS game.

Keep villifying the players; it's a simplistic view but if it works for you, enjoy.

Originally posted by Lawlmonster

Originally posted by gimmekey

Mainstreaming MMOs of course is what  threw the genre under the rails. Society caters to and promotes the ADD mentality, so how can MMOs not follow suit?

I don't want to get into the complex and seemingly prejorative issue of the average adult IQ, but I will say that catering to the masses promotes simplicity versus intricate content.

I would agree with this, personally. I definitely think it's a social issue, but that's why I was asking for differing opinions. In general, this is a difficult thing to judge. Is the population of gamers who really want easy access, mash-a-button games truly larger than those of us who want complex, virtual worlds? Are they just louder? I imagine they have good reasons for wanting games to be created in this manner, that is to say oversimplified, though I also imagine many of them would take some form of insult at saying that what they liked about easy games is their oversimplification.

Absolutely right, you know theres always the ADD guy who text messages while driving and gets people killed stoping halfway in traffic because gasp he had a panic attack because he didn't use his taxpayer supplied meds. They dont want any real competition, they want quests that point arrows in the right direction, they want instant teleportation to towns and raids and dont want pkers bothering them while they AFK on trade chat. Also talents and skills are too much trouble, they all use cookie cutter builds from websites because they stink at doing their own theorycraft, when talking about themselves they use the term Everyone often. As an excuse for their dense mind.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Goatgod76

What?!?

The developer's wouldn't make such overly simplistic games with fast paced rewards, etc if the market/playerbase wasn't screaming for it. And if anything, TODAY's MMO's are FAR MORE based on "e-peenery" than anything back then (Stat boards, ridiculously OP'ed armor and weapons/classes).

No, e-peenery simply became much more visible, once the devs realized the competitive egos of "pros" allows them to sell more games with leader boards and by giving them measuring sticks (like the Armory).  It's always been there.

Pandering to the egos of players who view themselves as "pro" is enormously profitable.  Ask any FPS game.

Keep villifying the players; it's a simplistic view but if it works for you, enjoy.

That is why we prosecute both the dealers and the users...

In reply to the OP:

Yeah, that is the big problems theese days the way I see it. All kinds of games, not just MMO's try their stab at the mainstream market of casual players and this is what you get when they do that....

Originally posted by Faelsun

They dont want any real competition, they want quests that point arrows in the right direction, they want instant teleportation to towns and raids and dont want pkers bothering them while they AFK on trade chat. Also talents and skills are too much trouble, they all use cookie cutter builds from websites because they stink at doing their own theorycraft, when talking about themselves they use the term Everyone often. As an excuse for their dense mind.

Originally posted by VirusDancer

That is why we prosecute both the dealers and the users...

True, it is an oddly symbiotic relationship.  But the Suits make the final call, so I tend to reserve my ire for them.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Goatgod76

What?!?

The developer's wouldn't make such overly simplistic games with fast paced rewards, etc if the market/playerbase wasn't screaming for it. And if anything, TODAY's MMO's are FAR MORE based on "e-peenery" than anything back then (Stat boards, ridiculously OP'ed armor and weapons/classes).

No, e-peenery simply became much more visible, once the devs realized the competitive egos of "pros" allows them to sell more games with leader boards and by giving them measuring sticks (like the Armory).  It's always been there.

Pandering to the egos of players who view themselves as "pro" is enormously profitable.  Ask any FPS game.

Keep villifying the players; it's a simplistic view but if it works for you, enjoy.

See, I was on board with your reply here until the last comment. I am capable of seeing both sides of an issue.

Sorry...but the playerbase IS worse...but of course, that is also because it is bigger. More people, more possibility of idiots. Players are just as much to blame for the current path of MMO's as the dev's are. After all...they wouldn't make the game with certain features if they weren't desired by their users.

Originally posted by Goatgod76

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Goatgod76

What?!?

The developer's wouldn't make such overly simplistic games with fast paced rewards, etc if the market/playerbase wasn't screaming for it. And if anything, TODAY's MMO's are FAR MORE based on "e-peenery" than anything back then (Stat boards, ridiculously OP'ed armor and weapons/classes).

No, e-peenery simply became much more visible, once the devs realized the competitive egos of "pros" allows them to sell more games with leader boards and by giving them measuring sticks (like the Armory).  It's always been there.

Pandering to the egos of players who view themselves as "pro" is enormously profitable.  Ask any FPS game.

Keep villifying the players; it's a simplistic view but if it works for you, enjoy.

See, I was on board with your reply here until the last comment. I am capable of seeing both sides of an issue.

Sorry...but the playerbase IS worse...but of course, that is also because it is bigger. More people, more possibility of idiots. Players are just as much to blame for the current path of MMO's as the dev's are. After all...they wouldn't make the game with certain features if they weren't desired by their users.

A child asks for a case of beer, a handful of pornos, and a pack of smokes...

...if an adult gives that to the child, it is primarily the child's fault?

You guys are missing something. Games in the modern world are designed as crack. It is essentially all Diablo's fault. People love loot drops. They also love slot machines. Mainly because these are the same thing functionally. Simplistic games with mechanics based on modern psychology in order to addict players are the model of today. Oldschool mmo's did not work that way.

Its rather ridiculous, if I run a sports book I go to prison but if Bigpoint sells a space drone for 1k$ thats just business. Capitalists are fucking morons who don't understand that just because you can make money doesn't make it okay to fuck people up in the head. We are cracking down on intra-family abuse but businesses exploiting abusive power dynamics get a cookie for their high sub numbers and sales of totally useless bullshit. We used to make fun of people who shelled out 200$ for designer jeans and tops, but thats nothing compared to 1k$ for a useless virtual item in a game that the majority of the world has never even heard of. 

Originally posted by VirusDancer

I went with common meals - it does not mean those are the only choices.  A person could start with dessert, have a salad, and go.  There is a variety available - a complex selection.  Even in the way the meals are prepared - how is the steak going to be cooked - how is it going to be seasoned - what side will there be?  Even the baked potato - plain, sour cream and chives, cheese, brocolli, etc, etc, etc.

I used to go to Olive Garden... I did not order anything standard - I customized my selection, although the items were not listed on the menu in the way that I ordered them - they were available in the way I ordered them.  Those options would not exist if I were to go a taco stand.   The taco stand is very limited.  It's meant for a quick grab of a meal, not unlike the hot dog cart, etc, etc.

Different people are looking for different things.  In general, one used to be able to assume that those looking to play MMORPGs were looking for something.  That has changed over the years as people have come into various restaurants so they could order off the taco stand menu...

...it's not considered a good thing by those that used to enjoy the genre for being what it was.  The people that are more than happy to eat from the taco stand everywhere they go might appear happy with it - but in general, they're not the people that stay around in a MMORPG anyway - they move along to the next taco stand.

No doubt the developers invited all these folks to come play - no doubt as the years have progessed - they've designed and redesigned to attract them.

Does not change that some of us do not want to eat at taco stands...

Even going back to your example of Chess.  Yes, somebody can go to the dollar store and pick up the game.  They can go home and play it with their significant other, their parents, kids, friends, etc, etc.  Just a little friendly game.  But you also have local Chess clubs.  Additional features/systems are in place.  It is more complex.  You have school tournaments, city tournaments, state tournaments, regional tournaments, national tournaments, international tournaments... each increasingly more complex because of the additional requirements/features/systems.

The MMO was on the far end of the spectrum in complexity for computer gaming... now, not so much.

They were virtual worlds - complex systems.  Now they're little action game lobbies.

I find it odd that you point the simplicity of the rules for Chess, when it is considered a very complex game.  Sure, there are only twenty first moves, but there are well over a thousand common openings.  The manner in which you can move those sixteen pieces, where there are six different piece types - is a complex system.

You clearly don't understand complexity vs. depth.

Chess is not complicated.  It is deep.

Chess Clubs just play Chess. Simple, 1-page-of-rules Chess.

How can a game be considered complicated when its rules fit on one single page!?  It's deep, not complicated.  Emergent depth occurs because the simple rules which are in place create a very dynamic gameplay where the best decision is not obvious.

When you ordered a baked potato you didn't order every single option available.  You kept it simple, to the 2-3 key additional ingredients which justified their presence enough to be tasty.

Would you really ever eat a baked potato with sour cream, bacon bits, pepper, salt, chedder, baked beans, ham, prawns, coleslaw, mushrooms, tuna, cream cheese and chives, sausage and beans, honey mustard chicken, gouda, and avocado?   Individually many of those would be delicious on a baked potato.  But once things become too complex, the end result is a disaster -- and the ideal count is almost always going to be a simple 2-3 key additional ingredients.