Adding Duke's personality to the game?

[mysteryperfecta]

How do you want Duke to express himself, beyond his typical wisecracks, in DNF? What visual/audible cues would you like to see/hear in the game that distinguish Duke as a personality, unlike the generic protagonists we're used to playing in FPSs?

One example I thought of draws inspiration from UT, and it's "Multikill! ULTRAKILL!!!" proclamations. Something that obvious wouldn't work in DNF's setting, but an acknowledgement befitting Duke's attitude after consecutive kills could still be satifying. For instance, after X number of quick kills, Duke could puff a cigar, or flip his weapon, or give some other display of bravado.

What other cues from Duke's environment can he take to establish his personality in DNF (BEYOND WISECRACKS!). What could he do, in certain situations, around certain places, or people?

What would happen if a player wandered too close to a pretty lady? What if, for that second, WASD still controlled Duke's movement, but his gaze was temporarily uncontrollable with the mouse ("Sorry, there's no controlling my libido!")? Other ideas?

[Commando Nukem]

Well, taking control from the player on any level is an inherently bad thing and generally can be annoying on replays.

I do think it would be cool on occasion (this could double as a bit of "help"):
If you approach a pile of physic objects, where say... Something is buried that you need (A keycard lets say). That Duke could take the barrel of the gun and knock the top layer of crap off of it as you come close to it. Sending empty boxes and paint cans, or whatever is in the way, flying.

[GivingEverything]

In Duke Nukem 3D, all you had to do to open a door was simply walk up to it and press Space/RMB/E.

Here we could probably take that to a more creative level. Instead of simply opening the door, Duke could punch it open, kick it open, or charge into the door, in either case breaking it off the hinges. This would add more of a "rambo" atmosphere to the game.

Or how about jumping from balconies onto enemies to kill them, a'la ROTT? I can see him jumping through a glass window, breaking it, and landing on the pigcop below in the street, crushing him.

[mysteryperfecta]

Originally Posted by Commando Nukem

Well, taking control from the player on any level is an inherently bad thing and generally can be annoying on replays.

I disagree that its inherent; you can only say that you haven't seen it done well. I think it can be done in a dynamic, groundbreaking way.

We can all agree, Duke is a strong character. He's not just a generic name with a generic background to give the player context, that the player 'becomes' in-game. Duke is his own man, and wouldn't want us to forget it. I don't know why we wouldn't subconsciously expect Duke, if we're playing poorly, to say "You suck!" and take complete control.

I'm not suggesting anything close to that. I'm merely asking for examples of unexpected things Duke could do to remind us that it's him who's kicking butt (like GivingEverything's creative ways to do mundane things).

Problematic in creating a strong personality for a main character is that the stronger the personality, the less you're going to feel like you 'are' the main character. I say, embrace it. If that means a momentary loss of control in a few choice circumstances, so be it. It could be the first game that feels like the protagonist had two brains in one body-- a symbiotic working relationship between you and Duke.

[Commando Nukem]

Originally Posted by mysteryperfecta

I disagree that its inherent; you can only say that you haven't seen it done well. I think it can be done in a dynamic, groundbreaking way.

We can all agree, Duke is a strong character. He's not just a generic name with a generic background to give the player context, that the player 'becomes' in-game. Duke is his own man, and wouldn't want us to forget it. I don't know why we wouldn't subconsciously expect Duke, if we're playing poorly, to say "You suck!" and take complete control.

I'm not suggesting anything close to that. I'm merely asking for examples of unexpected things Duke could do to remind us that it's him who's kicking butt (like GivingEverything's creative ways to do mundane things).

Problematic in creating a strong personality for a main character is that the stronger the personality, the less you're going to feel like you 'are' the main character. I say, embrace it. If that means a momentary loss of control in a few choice circumstances, so be it. It could be the first game that feels like the protagonist had two brains in one body-- a symbiotic working relationship between you and Duke.

No. You're taking control of DUKE. Like you would take control of a tank. You see what he sees, hear what he hears and you do as he would do. Dukes personality has always been designed into the enviroment and less into the character doing things. The reason is because you aren't supposed to just "live Dukes life" you are taking the place of the concious part of his brain. Would "duke" as we know him go around blasting strippers? No, but you CAN do that as him. Would he go around pissing on everything just because he feels like it? No, but if the feature to pee was there, someone might.

Taking control of the mouse or the keyboard is never a good idea, and no, its not because I have "never seen it done right" before. On the contrary in one instance of half-life the player is beaten unconcious, and a camerea entity is used to potray his fading vision. You can't do anything, but the camera looks around briefly. This is the only "right" way to "jack" the players control.

It really pisses people off to keep "running into" an invisible barrier where they suddenly lose the abillity to aim, or move. Or like in DooM3 they abruptly reduce your mouse sensitivity and movement speed. The difference is that that had a plot based mechanic to it. Just taking the players mouse aim away to oogle a girlie seems like a poor game design choice. Sticking with the basic use of physics, one liners and the occasional FBA animation should work just fine to clue us into his attitude. Hes a very audible character and he should not be "deepened" too much to the point that he becomes something "else".

[mysteryperfecta]

Originally Posted by Commando Nukem

No. You're taking control of DUKE. Like you would take control of a tank. You see what he sees, hear what he hears and you do as he would do.

But then you say...

Would "duke" as we know him go around blasting strippers? No, but you CAN do that as him. Would he go around pissing on everything just because he feels like it? No, but if the feature to pee was there, someone might.

But Duke could just as easily, for instance, exclaim "Dammit!" when you (accidentally or not) shoot a stripper because that's not something Duke would do.

The point you're missing is, Duke isn't just a tank you control. Other games just have mindless tanks. Duke is a distinct personality, and with the progression of design and tech, Duke can be a more substantial influence on his story.

Originally Posted by Commando Nukem

Dukes personality has always been designed into the enviroment and less into the character doing things.

It's the opposite. Duke is defined by what happens when you press the USE key on a stripper, or shrinking and stepping on an enemy, or cracking his knuckles and picking up a pistol, and most of all, by what he says (which you have no control over).

Originally Posted by Commando Nukem

Taking control of the mouse or the keyboard is never a good idea, and no, its not because I have "never seen it done right" before. On the contrary in one instance of half-life the player is beaten unconcious, and a camerea entity is used to potray his fading vision. You can't do anything, but the camera looks around briefly. This is the only "right" way to "jack" the players control.

Make up your mind-- is it "never" a good idea, or can it work? You concede, then, of one instance where it works, but NEVER ANOTHER WAY? I think that's narrow-minded.

Originally Posted by Commando Nukem

The difference is that that had a plot based mechanic to it. Just taking the players mouse aim away to oogle a girlie seems like a poor game design choice.

Duke being Duke is an obvious game mechanic.

Originally Posted by Commando Nukem

Sticking with the basic use of physics, one liners and the occasional FBA animation should work just fine to clue us into his attitude. Hes a very audible character and he should not be "deepened" too much to the point that he becomes something "else".

I don't want something "else", just something more. If you're satisfied with Duke a la 1996, go play Duke 3D. If things evolve on the tech and design side, they can evolve on the story and character side. Although I've heard a lot of resistance to the idea (including yours), I'm not afraid of Duke changing. Duke can be better.

[Commando Nukem]

Originally Posted by mysteryperfecta

But then you say...

My my you are defensive.

Please do not break up my posts. I used the term NEVER as in "outside of one instance", never. One can change their mind and not be a "flip flopper" okay? Thank you.

Im not afraid of duke being "better", e3 2001 looked superb, and seemed like it played very smoothly. You don't have to go into the insanity zone to make him "better" though. Like taking control of the players controls. Most gamers do not enjoy that. In the instances that i've seen it at least be "acceptable" are things like "supernatural" instances, where it serves the story. Its still annoying after a few play throughs.

The difference you're failing to see here is that when YOU use the stripper and DUKE reacts,Duke is reacting to you using the enviroment. Its Dukes reaction, to your action. Hes not taking control of the situation, you're still in control of what happens. You are in his head controlling HIM.

Duke "being duke" may be a part of the experience(hes not a "mechanic" himself as he does not do anything in particular to the enviroment, he just makes speak), but so far all he has done is make comment on the enviroment and the players actions. Taking control of the player, or doing things that directly effect the gameplay(things that are not "harmless") could result in some very bad scenarios.

The one liners, the special scenes, the secret areas, the random one liners when he finds items, or encounters civilians/babes... Those are the staples of the Duke Nukem character, but its the enviroment around the player that is acting, not Duke. Duke doesn't hopskotch over to the payphone and dial "911". If the player doesn't make it happen(as far as movement or interactivity), it shouldn't happen. Unless we're talking of say, Duke firing his eagle and with his empty hand giving the dead pigcop the bird... Thats a different story. The problem there is that you have to consider the realistic scenario of things like that happening. If he flips someone off, hes covering up another 15% of the screen, making it tough to see. You'd have to null out a feature like this in deathmatch as it would interfere with gameplay.

Oh and another thing. Just because I don't think Duke should be a radically different character or type a game (A game that is surface serious and full of humor with all the trimmings, and nothing to serious or over done.), does not mean I have to go "play Duke3D" thats no different then calling me a chickenhawke because I support the troops but have not served. I have a right to my opinion as much as you do to yours. If you feel challenged, and its pretty obvious you do considering how defensive you are being. You can deny that if you want but thats beside the point... You should just realise it is just "my opinion" and its not more right or wrong then yours, especially since neither of us has a clue as to what DNF will actually be like at all... and anything we say here is pretty much moot on the outcome of what the game will ultimately be like.

[vcatkiller]

I agree with the game taking over the camera thing. It's a bad idea. Most games that do that it feels more like a glitch or a bug, and I escape from the game to look for the game option to see if I can disable it.

If there's an obvious reason why the camera is moving by itself, ie you're strapped to a conveyor belt (Prey, Quake 4), you're semi-conscious and being dragged along (Half-Life), or some other physical restraint (passenger seat of car or helicopter ala FEAR) then it's not so bad. I can't see it being fun by forcing your camera to look at a stripper because "Duke would do that".

The idea is to make you believe YOU are Duke doing these things, not Duke is in your head making you do things.

Besides, I can imagine the frustration in the middle of a firefight when the camera violently yanks to the side towards a stripper just as you unload a shotgun. Sorry, it just doesn't sound fun.

[Colicedus]

I liked Duke Nukem in DN3D.
How ever, looking back on the game, Duke has a few personality disorders IMO.

He is a bit of a psychopath I thought, I understand there were alines capturing women and doing shit to them, but still a bit of a phyco.

I will defend him however, because we don't REALY see is personal life.
I highly doubt he simply sit at a strip club until closing hour Drinking.
Im sure he has family to go to. I know he is fictional and all, but I really want to see some of Dukes Back life, before Duke Nukem 1 and 2.

[GivingEverything]

In Duke Nukem 1, Duke Nukum was a bachelor trying to find himself, watching Oprah, various soap operas, and becoming agitated every time the television went out. He happened to be working for the CIA at the time. When Dr. Proton started getting into monkey business, Nukum felt obligated to do his job (but only if he could get back home in time for Oprah.)

At the beginning of Duke Nukem 2, Nukum was constantly ostracized by his friends, the public, and the media for his sappy attitude, so he changed his name to Nukem, released "Why I'm So Great" etc., and basically got in everybody's face and started acting like Nukem now.

There's not really much more to know, other than that he is obviously a womanizer and - on occasion - has been called an anarchist and a misanthrope. He's basically your average Joe; doesn't want to go out of his comfort zone, but he'll kick some ass if he needs to.

[Commando Nukem]

Originally Posted by GivingEverything

In Duke Nukem 1, Duke Nukum was a bachelor trying to find himself, watching Oprah, various soap operas, and becoming agitated every time the television went out. He happened to be working for the CIA at the time. When Dr. Proton started getting into monkey business, Nukum felt obligated to do his job (but only if he could get back home in time for Oprah.)

At the beginning of Duke Nukem 2, Nukum was constantly ostracized by his friends, the public, and the media for his sappy attitude, so he changed his name to Nukem, released "Why I'm So Great" etc., and basically got in everybody's face and started acting like Nukem now.

There's not really much more to know, other than that he is obviously a womanizer and - on occasion - has been called an anarchist and a misanthrope. He's basically your average Joe; doesn't want to go out of his comfort zone, but he'll kick some ass if he needs to.

Perfect. Can I quote you on that? Oh oops, too late.

[GivingEverything]

Go right ahead. I don't think this is exactly 3D Realms' interpretation, but I think it's pretty damn close.

[Colicedus]

That has answered allot of my questions about Mr Nukem.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by mysteryperfecta

Problematic in creating a strong personality for a main character is that the stronger the personality, the less you're going to feel like you 'are' the main character. I say, embrace it. If that means a momentary loss of control in a few choice circumstances, so be it. It could be the first game that feels like the protagonist had two brains in one body-- a symbiotic working relationship between you and Duke.

Yes, but then who is the player and who is Duke? As soon as you create a division between the player and the character he's controlling, you break down the fourth wall, because in a character driven game, there is no place for the player at all. Does Duke kick ass because there's some alternate personality inside his head? And if it's made clear that someone else is in control of him for much of the game (only for him to re-establish control periodically) then surely he can't take responsibility for what happens, he doesn't kick ass; the player does.

Now you might argue that's how it is now, but the point is that the player doesn't exist in the universe, so everything the player does gets reattributed back to Duke. In the universe, there is no separate entity taking control at all, only Duke kicking ass. And the way in which Duke kicks ass of course depends on the way in which the player has controlled him through the game. The player is Duke.

But as a player if you want to believe that you are actually controlling Duke, you can do, and if you want to believe that you are Duke, you can do that too - as long as the game never interferes with your sphere of control. As soon as it does that, fans are denied the latter choice and the division between them and the character is laid open, taking them out of the game.

It also confuses the narrative and breaks open the fourth wall by acknowledging that there is a player controlling Duke.

Finally, if the player is not in control then he feels a lot less empowered, and lot more 'shackled down'. First person control is the players' domain, it's the 'side' of Duke that he is given responsibility for controlling, and the player knows that he doesn't control what Duke says or how he converses with people, because that's outside of his power. Within the constraints of the game the player thus feels like he has infinite freedom, to model how Duke behaves outside of the core narrative. When Duke takes control however, all of that is taken away from the player.

[Needle]

In DN3D, didn`t Duke say something like "I`m tired of walking backwards" when the player was backpedaling a lot? I liked that, because he was not saying "Hey you, player. Stop walking backwards!" or something like that. He was sorta talking to himself. More comments like that definitely would be fun.

But Duke suddenly taking over outside of cut scenes? Well, that sure would be unique. But there had to be some explanation, like Duke going berserk or something. Duke openly admitting that he's in a game seems to be a bit too wacky to me.

[Kalki]

The fourth wall was broken in Duke3D and Shadow Warrior only when the player wasn't doing anything. The idle chatter/animations ("What are you waiting for, Christmas?")

But yeah, interactive animations that go longer than Duke 3D's are bad enough. People want control at all times.

Originally Posted by mysteryperfecta

I don't know why we wouldn't subconsciously expect Duke, if we're playing poorly, to say "You suck!" and take complete control.

"This sucks" after you die? Been done.

Originally Posted by mysteryperfecta

But Duke could just as easily, for instance, exclaim "Dammit!" when you (accidentally or not) shoot a stripper because that's not something Duke would do.

He does say "Damn it" in Duke 3D.

[bokaj]

Originally Posted by mysteryperfecta

The point you're missing is, Duke isn't just a tank you control. Other games just have mindless tanks. Duke is a distinct personality, and with the progression of design and tech, Duke can be a more substantial influence on his story.

.

Give me a break. The only personality in DN3D was the wisecracks .. Duke sounded like a twelve years old kid with a mans voice. I can think of very few of todays games with less personality.
Sure it was great at the time but that was because it was new .. like being able to turn on the water and flush the toilets.

[mysteryperfecta]

Originally Posted by Commando Nukem

My my you are defensive.

Please do not break up my posts. I used the term NEVER as in "outside of one instance", never. One can change their mind and not be a "flip flopper" okay? Thank you.

And my reply was, if in one instance, why not another? I listed one specific instance where a one-second loss in control would inject a little more 'Duke' into the game. One instance --> one second. The player is not exactly becoming a spectator. And I'm only arguing for my point; you're reaction is far more defensive. I don't have any illusions that mine is an unorthodox idea that some would resist. This is supposed to be a brainstorming thread.

Originally Posted by Commando Nukem

Im not afraid of duke being "better", e3 2001 looked superb, and seemed like it played very smoothly. You don't have to go into the insanity zone to make him "better" though. Like taking control of the players controls.

I'm talking specifically about the character of Duke, and I don't feel my little suggestion goes into the insanity zone. I've just added a gameplay consideration. Games have been affecting optimal player control with flashbangs and gas (resulting in degraded vision, hearing, and movement). This is simply another complication-- wander too close to a hottie, and Duke is momentarily distracted. You're free to hate the idea. It was a simple suggestion to get the thread started, not a campaign.

[mysteryperfecta]

Firefly--

You make salient points, but I wish, every once in a while, that people use their time to explore any idea, rather than pick it apart.

The player/protagonist relationship is already murky, imo. The fourth wall is broken down, and reestablished on a whim. Truth be told, I don't think its been much of a consideration. Players control what they control, the protagonist controls what they control, and what is controlled by whom can vary.

My suggestion could be part of a plan to break down the fourth wall (Duke is genuinely psychotic, and acknowledges that something is indeed controlling him), or the wall could turn into a two-sided mirror (Duke doesn't know we're controlling him, but we do). Does that eliminate the opportunity to 'be' Duke? Perhaps. Is that breaking some gamer commandment? A very strong, distinct protagonist at the center hurts that vicarious experience as well. My question is, could it still work? Can we challenge the status quo?

Maybe we only control part of Duke's brain. Maybe (in an ironic twist), we control the ego, and Duke controls the id. Duke's impulses are to chase tail, and we are his better judgement. Again, I never suggested (and would hate) some ongoing battle for physical control of Duke. My suggestion was a tiny strategic consideration in the category of a flashbang effect.

"This sucks" after you die? Been done.

Not what I said. The idea of Duke taking control from a poor player was my rhetorical suggestion.

He does say "Damn it" in Duke 3D.

But in the context I suggested (that is, when the player does something Duke does not and would not do)?

[Kalki]

Rhetorical. Should've known.

Originally Posted by mysteryperfecta

But in the context I suggested (that is, when the player does something Duke does not and would not do)?

That's the beauty of it. Duke may not approve and says so, but he does it anyway. The action and dialog together reconcile themselves with the combined identity of Duke and player.

For Duke3D, Scott Miller was said to have suggested the babes be protected by punishing the player, i.e. spawn a trooper whenever one of them is killed, that attacks the player. Of course, most of the time people did it just so they'd get additional target practice- the punitive measure became the incentive More to the point, I reckon it became an accidental and unintended justification for Duke killing NPCs (which the babes were). I think they're carrying it on in DNF, going by the 2001 video. Everybody is infected(the troopers teleported from within the dying duke3d babes) ergo everybody is expendable, no matter how much Duke hates doing it. The threat revealed justifies the kill. 3DR might get creative to protect a few key npcs but we should see many freedoms(gameplay and narrative) in DNF.

Duke's world exists to pander to the combined Duke-Player ego. Anything goes.

[mysteryperfecta]

Originally Posted by Kalki

That's the beauty of it. Duke may not approve and says so, but he does it anyway. The action and dialog together reconcile themselves with the combined identity of Duke and player.

The question is how we want him to disapprove. Does Duke treat the actions he opposes as his own mistakes, or does he (in some fourth wall tampering) attribute disapproved actions to us? Or will we stick with some arbitrary mix? You've already shown that 3dr will break the fourth wall (on nothing more than a one-off lark).

This thread's entire raison d'être is the pursuit of a Duke Nukem more significant, influentual, and fully-formed as an in-game presence. Duke (via his personality/attitude) is as big a distinguishing factor in these games as anything. I thought people liked that fact. I asked for suggestions of how Duke could be a bigger part of the game. This unexpectedly led to the matter of where the player ends and Duke begins. I wouldn't mind seeing 3dr play with that line.

[Dead Chief]

It al boils down to one thing...it's just a game, you can't expect a the main character to be himself more than the player playing the game. You control the player and thus you are the main character. If you want duke to do whatever he wants, then wait for a cinematic, too bad those are probably cut off the game.

[Kalki]

It might work better in a 3rd person shooter. And by giving the player the choice to give up control, like any other relinquishing interaction (see using toilets and peeing in Duke3d). Want to humiliate a dead enemy? Crouch and press 'use' on his dead body and Duke either removes his cigar or uses the most recently-fired gun barrel to blow smoke on the enemy's face.

Maybe we only control part of Duke's brain. Maybe (in an ironic twist), we control the ego, and Duke controls the id.

It's always been the other way around. I don't see much of a chance of that changing tbh.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by mysteryperfecta

Firefly--

You make salient points, but I wish, every once in a while, that people use their time to explore any idea, rather than pick it apart.

It's much harder to construct than it is to deconstruct. But I don't believe the two approaches are mutually exclusive. In considering why you would want to adopt a particular mechanic, you have to explore the ways in which the mechanic breaks down and the effect the mechanic has on the player's experience, so that you can see the potential tradeoffs and how you might design around them.

And I think in trying to design around these tradeoffs in a game like DNF, which already comes with a set of specific expectations about what the game and character represent, you risk alienating the fanbase and creating something that feels like a wacky re-imaging rather than a real sequel. I'm not sure people would react favourably to being told they control a small segment of Duke's brain that's in conflict with the rest of him! And of course by doing that, you make Duke schizophrenic and so change the character into something much less integrated, much less composed.

I think the more Duke takes control, the more difficult it becomes to justify from a story perspective, and the more you risk alienating those that want to be Duke in his entirety. At the same time, infrequent small-scale 'interruptions' still risk pulling the player out of the game (especially as the player will have been given little opportunity to adjust), but lack the payoff of a properly integrated mechanic (where the player would feel like he had a symbiotic relationship with Duke).

So to do justice to your idea, I really think you need to start afresh with a new game or character concept, where you're not constantly running into fan expectations, and don't have all this existing baggage to work with.

The player/protagonist relationship is already murky, imo. The fourth wall is broken down, and reestablished on a whim. Truth be told, I don't think its been much of a consideration. Players control what they control, the protagonist controls what they control, and what is controlled by whom can vary.

That may be, but ambiguity allows the player to decide for himself the nature of the relationship, so that he can decide how best to be immersed. And I think it's fairly clear that in character driven games, the player doesn't exist as part of the narrative, and that the majority of players attribute successes to the character, and not the player. If someone told you that a Duke or a Halo movie was being made, you wouldn't ask "yeah, but who is the player in the movie?".

And the fourth wall is only ever explicitly broken down in pieces of 'easter egg' style dialogue and the like, where the player often isn't directly addressed at all.

My suggestion could be part of a plan to break down the fourth wall (Duke is genuinely psychotic, and acknowledges that something is indeed controlling him), or the wall could turn into a two-sided mirror (Duke doesn't know we're controlling him, but we do).

That would work, but it would be a significant story change. I really would like to see an exploration of the relationship between the player and the protagonist, but I just don't think DNF is necessarily the right place to do it.

What might work better is having Duke invaded by some alien force or organism, changing him visibly; although again, the game would be about the exploits of the organism!

Does that eliminate the opportunity to 'be' Duke? Perhaps. Is that breaking some gamer commandment?

No, but if the majority, or at least a large proportion of the player base, want to be Duke then is the decision going to be beneficial?

Why don't I make the point differently: what's special about DNF that you feel makes it suited to the mechanic you describe?

[mysteryperfecta]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Why don't I make the point differently: what's special about DNF that you feel makes it suited to the mechanic you describe?

Because Duke is an iconic game character. His persona is distinct, and manifests itself in familiar ways. People like him. The point of the mechanic is not to make the player a bigger part of the game world; on the contrary, it's aim is to make Duke a bigger part of the game.

Really, this discussion has gone way beyond what I intended. I offered a very specific idea, and (perhaps mistakenly) explored the idea in more expansive terms in rebuttals. As a consequence, a (possible one-off, possible game mechanic) second-long involuntary camera steer befitting Duke's persona is now a showstopping, immersion-breaking paradigm shift.

The basic premise of the thread is the insertion of unexpected 'Duke-isms' into gameplay. It could be as simple as Duke whistling at a dame, without the player pressing a 'whistle' key command. I suppose it could be something expected and repeatable-- running to a door and pressing 'USE' would have Duke put his shoulder into the door, busting it from the hinges, as GiveEverything suggested (or kicked in, as in the 2001 vid). It's about doing more things 'the Duke way' as opposed to the conventional way.

What are some FPS conventions that could be tweaked so that they feel distinctly 'Duke'?

[Colicedus]

Duke Nukem, and the player...
Hmmm...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NeR2LyILWQ