The Evolving FPS Genre

[Lobsterkid101]

The Fps (First Person Shooter) Genre has seen a lot of action. Surely Trillions of lives have been lost in epic battles for survival, not all those lives were human, but they were lives nonetheless. The Core concept of this genre revolves around, to quote Yahtzee "you and the other enemy hold your mouse?s over each other and click until the other person dies"

To the average person, one might think that this would get boring, and indeed, the concept could get very monotonous if it weren't for the brilliant developers constantly thinking up of new environments, tactics, and enemies for people to work out their thumbs on.

Whilst all this is fun and great, the massive onslaught of FPS's have completely jaded me in their regard. Massive attacks on enemy fortresses barely flutter the heart anymore, the nuclear bomb no longer even registers on the holy shit scale, and the epic push to save the human race from aliens doesn't show anything new enough to slap me in the face and wake me up from this trance. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one in this regard. Many a site I've visited with majority of the complaints that could be summed up as "it's been done before"

Yes, yes it has been done before, and the reason why people still buy fps's while they have a cupboard chockfull of them is simply because they have a different premise. A different environment so to speak, which tricks consumers into thinking its a wholly different game when its really not. A perfect example of this would be Call of Duty 5, great game, I'm not disputing that. But the fact that it runs on the exact same engine as Call of duty 4, just a different premise, 50 years into the past, helps emphasize my point. Its the same thing, just a different environment.

If my jaded(ness) is anything to go by. I believe that this well of painting new coats of paint on an extremely old house is going to dry up very soon. However, the Genre of FPS is far, FAR too profitable for it to die just like that. Instead, I believe it will be forced to evolve when it can no longer rely on consumers to buy products that all have the same core concept in mind with very little variation in its core-gameplay, much like the human race will evolve beyond our dependence on oil and change to alternative fuels instead.

The question now is, how will the FPS genre evolve beyond First Person Shooting? I honestly couldn't tell you. However, i think an excellent example of such a FPS mutant would be Mirror's Edge. Yes, its gameplay focused almost exclusively on platforming rather then shooting, but the very fact that it was in first person, and that you could indeed shoot, but also run up walls and jump buildings proves my point. The core concept has evolved beyond just shooting, its now an entirely different beast, something that combines to genre's into a game that is truly different on the most basic level, rather then just a pretty coat of paint on an old war-horse. Some people may not like the idea of platforming and shooting, and that?s ok. But the very fact that it CHANGES the core concept of an FPS is something certainly in the correct direction.

Mirror's Edge is only one direction where the FPS genre could go. To some, I'm sure it seems like a natural evolution, to others, perhaps not. To leave a question, just so I can get you all to comment, what kind of evolution would you like the FPS genre to take? What different direction should it head in, and what ideas you might have for a game that you have thought of yourself that employs this thinking?

 

[ChocoCake]

You bring up a point here, and a good one at that. I see the FPS genre as evolving as technology does, allowing for more and more realistic games. Most developers these days tend to want to make their games more realisic then the "last one". Some may have succeeded at this, while others have failed. What I would like to see, is an FPS game where they incorporate more immersion and more adventure into it. I like the FPS games where you are not stuck to a course towards the "mothership" or the "rich Saudi sheikh". I would like to play an FPS game where they tell me what I have to do it, and then I go out and try my best to do it. This may not mean that I have to secure this checkpoint, or guard this caravan, but can mean I go straight there and see what happens to my inexperienced character.
I guess what I am saying, is that I would enjoy a lot more freedom, to not be stuck to the confines of "The Standard Gaming Book of Rules: FPS Version".

 

[Nutcase]

Arcade FPS where you attempt to make various kinds of comboes and whatnot, get bonuses and powerups, where the scoring and not mere completion of the level is the goal. (as in The Club, but FPS)

Squad/platoon level war FPS, with realistic suppressing and covering fire tactics. Optionally, coordination with armor and artillery elements.

 

[CoverYourHead]

I've always wondered about a FPS where your character CAN fail thus changing what happens drastically throughout the course of the game seeing as every game I play now-a-days ends in either a forced failure from the game (like in super hero games where even though I kick the bad-guy's butt he still ends up winning) or flawless victory, I would like to see some flexibility on how I complete objectives.

And apologies for my being a little bit off-topic, but you really got me raving.

 

[Shellsh0cker]

I've always wondered about a FPS where your character CAN fail thus changing what happens drastically throughout the course of the game seeing as every game I play now-a-days ends in either a forced failure from the game (like in super hero games where even though I kick the bad-guy's butt he still ends up winning) or flawless victory, I would like to see some flexibility on how I complete objectives.

And apologies for my being a little bit off-topic, but you really got me raving.

Consequences would be nice. If the game had a branching storyline, where different things happened depending on whether you accomplished or failed each mission.

Personally, I'd like to see a little more variance in art direction. I think we all know what game I'd about to name as an example; yep, TF2. It's a great example of the fact that your game doesn't need to be über-realistic to be good.

 

[Lobsterkid101]

Its a different direction true...but the core concept remains the same.

 

[ranger19]

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you on most of your premise. Sure, many FPSs are copycats of each other, many fight so save humanity, or have nuclear bombs, etc etc., but that isn't an issue with just FPSs. How many (J)RPGs will have you, the main character, be the chosen one go out and save the land from the bad guy who is about to summon the ultimate evil? How many will have crystals, magic, swords? This isn't even specific to the medium of video games: how many action movies will talk about a war, or how many romantic comedies will have the main couple fall in love? This issue permeates all forms of creative media.

Also, you're being very cynical and unrealistic when quoting Yahtzee. When dealing with him, I usually take everything with a grain of salt. Have you ever stood there and only held your mouse over one guy? No. You haven't. Depending on the type of game, you're either running around, frantically avoiding grenades and crossfire, or bracing yourself up against cover, working with your teammates to outmanuver the other team, or you're lying prone in the bushes 100 yards away silently lining up your shot, or you're in a tank... you get the idea. There's a lot more variety in FPS games than you're letting on to. Sure, COD4 and COD5 are very similar, but they're sequels - they're supposed to be similar in terms of gameplay mechanics. But COD is very different from Rainbow Six Vegas, which is different from Bioshock, which is different from Fallout 3 etc.

Finally, I think you fail to realize that FPSs have been full of creativity and pushing the boundaries on the genre for years. Sure, because it's one of the most lucrative genres it's full of shovelware, but it's all evolved from some very good roots. The genre itself was once a hugely new thing, with the original FPSs of Doom and the like. Half-Life and it's successors were the first of their kind to incorporate a story of that level of sophistication into the game. Goldeneye for the N64 (I believe) first introduced the idea of analog control and paved the road for dual-analog control. Portal created a FPS in which you don't actually shoot someone, and mixed puzzle element for a fantastic piece of work. Counterstrike brought multiplayer online into the forefront (again, I believe). Halo was the first to introduce full-orchestra soundtracks of its caliber.

Even within the last year or two, games have really been pushing limits a bit. You already mentioned Mirror's Edge. Bioshock had an amazing story and atmosphere, and there were only 1 or 2 cutscenes in the whole game. COD4's perks system was new and introduced a whole new level of customization to online FPS multiplayer. And MAG, recently announced for the PS3 should push limits on how big an online game can really be. Need I go on?

I don't know where you got this jaded feeling from, because I think even if a lot of games are samey, there's still a ton of innovation. And even if games use similar mechanics, if it's fun it's fun, and a new story is often worth the price of admission if the gameplay is solid. After all, why would people see action movies if they've already seen the hero save the day before? The same holds for AAA games.

 

[drumboi88]

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you on most of your premise. Sure, many FPSs are copycats of each other, many fight so save humanity, or have nuclear bombs, etc etc., but that isn't an issue with just FPSs. How many (J)RPGs will have you, the main character, be the chosen one go out and save the land from the bad guy who is about to summon the ultimate evil? How many will have crystals, magic, swords? This isn't even specific to the medium of video games: how many action movies will talk about a war, or how many romantic comedies will have the main couple fall in love? This issue permeates all forms of creative media...

Now, I may not be an expert of FPS, since my lineup of them have included Goldeneye, BioShock, Fallout 3, and Half-Life 2. But years of watching my brother take on every Call of Duty, every Rainbow Six, and every Halo game out there thus far, I can say that there hasn't been innovation on the FPS front since Goldeneye, to be honest.

Once GoldenEye opened up that dual-analog play, most FPSs stayed consistent. Sure the pistol got switched for a semi-auto, and the russian base got changed for the japanese military stronghold, even that grenade became a flash bomb, it was still you out to defeat the evil masses.

So far, innovation has come in games that have no sequel, and have no real online play. Why? Think about it.

BioShock was great because it gave you a setting you have never seen, and even made the best realism out of it. Have you EVER played in a mad mans world under the sea? It also helped that it wasn't JUST a shooter, and you didn't know exactly who the bad guy was, just that you needed to get somewhere. (I will say, I have my negatives on this game as well...)
Portal made FPS a non-violent genre: a gun that...didn't kill any one? How? Not to mention the story and dialog were well written.
Mirror's Edge actually removed almost all of the S in FPS, and almost dropped to platformer. But it innovated the FPS just like Portal: a game played almost solely on puzzles.

3 things that annoyed me about your post:
1) Comparing video game story to movie storylines, especially with the romance bit. You can't compare them, as the "viewer" has more control over a video games story and such then they do for movies. You don't play a game like you watch a movie, or else movies would be like those Goosebumps books you read where you flipped pages for different stories.
2) The fact that Yahtzee says "click on man until he dies" is a bit extreme when it comes to FPS, but it still is, for the most part true. Regardless of if your 100 ft behind a bush, or in a tank. Your still pointing and clicking on the bad guy, right?
3) Full-orchestra soundtracks? Last I checked, I didn't buy a video game because it had full-orchestra soundtracks. In fact, it's the last thing I check when I get a game. I was in concert/brass/marching band for roughly 10 years of my K-12 education, so I'd rather not CARE.

I will admit, MAG definitely is pushing ONLINE FPS. Last I heard, having that many online players at once was unheard of...and kinda scary.

 

[freebiewitz]

Well my faverite fps breaktrhoughs would be halo. Why?
in halo ce it was one of the first games to
1.have a grenade button that wasnt acctually selected as a weapon.
2.Had vehicales where you had an animation getting into one
3.No default mellee weapon (when I found out I thought no dagger? no stick? No crowbar?)
but instead had EVERY weapon as the mellee weapon.

Halo 2 only had one I could think of.
1.Independent dual wielding weapons, before halo 2 all dual wields had to be the same gun and the same button would fire both guns at the same time though in some cases fire one at a time.

Halo 3 uuuuh letme think..... well I cant say forge cose of gmod.....I cant say equipment cose bf1942 had mines as well..... I cant even say video recording cose other games get that too. But I still liked it.

Well as far as I can see most of the innovations in fps so far are hybrids.
Mirrors edge, platformer
portal, puzzle
shadow run, mmo
battle field 2, sorta like an rts

you get the idea. Obviously there are alot of other games that dont even combine genres but I'd like to see them do so.

Lets all just hope they never put fps's together with turn based games. 0.0

 

[aussiesniper]

Lets all just hope they never put fps's together with turn based games. 0.0

Too late. Fallout 3 has the VATS turn-based combat system.

 

[Hithel]

I wouldn't give Mirror's Edge as much credit for its gameplay mechanics as I would like to laud it for its color scheme.

I mean, if I have to wade through another generic space-marine, brown-tinted shooter again I swear I'll...

 

[ranger19]

Now, I may not be an expert of FPS, since my lineup of them have included Goldeneye, BioShock, Fallout 3, and Half-Life 2. But years of watching my brother take on every Call of Duty, every Rainbow Six, and every Halo game out there thus far, I can say that there hasn't been innovation on the FPS front since Goldeneye, to be honest.

Once GoldenEye opened up that dual-analog play, most FPSs stayed consistent. Sure the pistol got switched for a semi-auto, and the russian base got changed for the japanese military stronghold, even that grenade became a flash bomb, it was still you out to defeat the evil masses.

I'm a little confused by this, because you say you see little innovation in the genre, yet at the same time admit to having played (for example) Bioshock and praise it for its work. Yes, many games just change the setting, and perhaps the controls have stayed the same for a few years now, but there's still a lot of change going on - which you seem to discuss later. Huh?

So far, innovation has come in games that have no sequel, and have no real online play. Why? Think about it.

BioShock was great because it gave you a setting you have never seen, and even made the best realism out of it. Have you EVER played in a mad mans world under the sea? It also helped that it wasn't JUST a shooter, and you didn't know exactly who the bad guy was, just that you needed to get somewhere. (I will say, I have my negatives on this game as well...)
Portal made FPS a non-violent genre: a gun that...didn't kill any one? How? Not to mention the story and dialog were well written.
Mirror's Edge actually removed almost all of the S in FPS, and almost dropped to platformer. But it innovated the FPS just like Portal: a game played almost solely on puzzles.

Well I can at least answer you the question about why innovation has come "in games that have no sequel, and have no real online play". Quite frankly, online multiplayer has to be so balanced and polished that it sucks up any time for creative work. For example, if I'm working on a multiplayer FPS and devote some of my resources to coming up with cool new concepts, but because of that I don't spend enough time on the multiplayer and it ends up being broken (too powerful weapons, unbalanced maps, etc), you'll be in trouble. Besides, usually it's the multiplayer part of the game that keeps people coming back, so they need to make extra sure it works. I agree with your comments about Bioshock, and Mirrors Edge though.

3 things that annoyed me about your post:
1) Comparing video game story to movie storylines, especially with the romance bit. You can't compare them, as the "viewer" has more control over a video games story and such then they do for movies. You don't play a game like you watch a movie, or else movies would be like those Goosebumps books you read where you flipped pages for different stories.

My point was this: movies, which have no gameplay aspect and a static forms of media for the viewer, have these genres such as romantic comedy where the same thing happens every time, but people still go to watch them. The OP was complaining that FPSs all had the same stories. But if movies have this problem and people have little issue with it, and a game has more involvement for the player (i.e. actually playing the game) so the story is less important, what's the problem? Every form of media relies on crutches like this. Even choose-your-own-adventure books have similarities like this, which you notice once you read a couple in a row. (I had to for a game design class I took last year.)

The fact that Yahtzee says "click on man until he dies" is a bit extreme when it comes to FPS, but it still is, for the most part true. Regardless of if your 100 ft behind a bush, or in a tank. Your still pointing and clicking on the bad guy, right?

I mean, I suppose I will have to concede that to you. You're right. It's just that the OP seemed to be taking it too seriously.. and if we go like that, you can turn even the greatest games into something boring sounding: Ocarina of Time? You just go into a dungeon, get the item, kill the boss, repeat. Portal? You just make portals to get around places. So that's all.

Full-orchestra soundtracks? Last I checked, I didn't buy a video game because it had full-orchestra soundtracks. In fact, it's the last thing I check when I get a game. I was in concert/brass/marching band for roughly 10 years of my K-12 education, so I'd rather not CARE.

I'll give you that I don't buy games for their soundtracks either, but it's more what having a full-orchestra soundtrack means. Games used to be little toys for entertaining and quieting young boys, with their beeps and their boops and their marios. These days, gaming has permeated mainstream culture, games are getting more notice and thus higher production values, and so are able to do much more - i.e. better more sophisticated art direction, soundtracks, stories, and so on. This paves the way better stories and new ideas. Does that make sense?

I will admit, MAG definitely is pushing ONLINE FPS. Last I heard, having that many online players at once was unheard of...and kinda scary.

I agree. I'm not sure I buy the idea yet, because I can't see how they'll make sure that 50 or 100 player on each team or whatever stay with their commander and do as their told. Nobody's going to want to do that, so it might just turn into a huge mess.. but I'm witholding my opinion until I see it for myself. It looks cool for sure.

 

[pxZero]

I'm not going to spend my time looking back and quoting every thing that people have been begging for in FPS... but pretty much everything that's being asked for has been done. Rather then go through and voice where everything came from and where we can expect it to go, I'm going to mention some games that seem to be chronically overlooked when looking for 'innovation' in the industry.

Ultima: Underworld (1992 I think?) This game was fantastic, but horribly overlooked for numerous reasons. Most notibly, it was a dungeon crawler RPG, in First Person without an IG map. (that I ever found at least). Being lost for hours wasn't so fun, and I wasn't about to go drawing the map. But it was, in effect, Oblivion years and years earlier. It had true3D surfaces (unlike the Wolfenstien 3D effects), and it was an RPG/First Person... blundegon game since you didn't really have a gun. The engine was later used in...

System Shock: Great game... System Shock II is better.
System Shock II: See Bioshock.
Bioshock: Talked about more than enough. Great game, great atmosphere.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R: Everyone's familiar with this monster of a game. It's one hell of an open ended game. Go where you want, do what you want, and most suprisingly, your character actually isn't necessairly the 'only character who can accomplish whatever goal'.

Deus Ex: Honestly, this game is *OH SO* good. Before making any complaints about the FPS industry, I'd really go play the Deus Ex games... and then you can agree with me that the bar was set REALLY HIGH almost 10 years ago with this one. Side quests, mulitple ways to finish almost every mission.... genuis game.

Battlezone: No one seems to remember this little gem - except me. Battlezone was fantastic in its own way... while being an average FPS, the multiplayer had the ability to pull off RTS simultaneously with FPS. You built your WHOLE base, chose the vechicules you'd build and the weapons you'd get. And beat the poor baddies to a pulp at the same time. Most memorable from the ability to snipe enemy players out of their vechiules with a sniper rifle.

Natural Selection: Another great HalfLife mod. One team is the aliens, which can all morph on their own 'resource points' at any time. One team are the marines, who have a commander who can build in an RTS style while dropping weapons and armour for his team. Sure, a little AvP, but it pulled from other genres to make a game in its own realm.

As for this whole 'brand new' element that everyone is looking for... it doesn't exist in any gaming genre. Puzzles will always be puzzles. Platformers will always involve you getting to the end. Shooters, you'll always shoot. Yes, most games are a change of environment, but take any genre, change the environment, characters, tools/weapons and storyline, and you can end up with ANY game in the same genre. If we want these 'new games' I maintain that we need to return to the old style of games: Either whacky beyond all belief, which opens up so many doors that have never been walked down before... or a game where PLOT is the first and foremost element, and shooting be secondary.

Just my really long 2 cents.

 

[Skarvey]

The improvement of this genre will come when it gives us a reason to shoot. Developers have been substituting gameplay mechanics and graphic buffs in the place of real story and character development.

 

[drumboi88]

Now, I may not be an expert of FPS, since my lineup of them have included Goldeneye, BioShock, Fallout 3, and Half-Life 2. But years of watching my brother take on every Call of Duty, every Rainbow Six, and every Halo game out there thus far, I can say that there hasn't been innovation on the FPS front since Goldeneye, to be honest.

Once GoldenEye opened up that dual-analog play, most FPSs stayed consistent. Sure the pistol got switched for a semi-auto, and the russian base got changed for the japanese military stronghold, even that grenade became a flash bomb, it was still you out to defeat the evil masses.

I'm a little confused by this, because you say you see little innovation in the genre, yet at the same time admit to having played (for example) Bioshock and praise it for its work. Yes, many games just change the setting, and perhaps the controls have stayed the same for a few years now, but there's still a lot of change going on - which you seem to discuss later. Huh?

The response was too big and I'm too lazy to comment in between, so I just posted your first paragraph. I guess what I'm trying to say for the majority of main FPS shooters is that they all seem A) too mainstream and hyped over, and B) repetitive. I never got into Halo mostly for the fact that the storyline and my inability to work the controls bogged me down and made me slow. Too slow to even get used to. As the trilogy progressed, it became more evident that this game was popular, but a bit more of a reason to be so excited about this game. It's not my cup of tea, but the fact that Halo 3 is STILL releasing map packs and such slightly bothers me. Online play is relatively the same, in which it involves killing the other player before he kills you. Granted, throw in some other weapons, a car, and some terrain, it's still there. Maybe my judgement of the series was biased on my whole inability to play? I'm still anti-Halo on that.

Call of Duty has always been the same for me, I liked the first Call of Duty, and I found amusement out of flash-banging every terrorist out there, but that's all I needed. Call of Duty 1. Not 2. Or 3. Or 4. or 10. Just 1. Point being, the original COD made a good impact, but we don't need more locales.

As for Rainbow Six, it just felt like a Counter-Strike modification which all still boiled down to Call of Duty for me. The same game play, and mechanics. The reason games like BioShock and Portal and such became good FPS shooters for me, was probably because they didn't always involve the same missions and such. I was offered more than cover against splicers, or I had to fashion myself one against turrets. I guess the innovation of what COD/CS/RS/Halo was lost after they all ran together as being the same similar game. Maybe if the next Call of Duty took place in a future World War...or even a World War 3 that may have happened, I'd get back to being interesting, because weapons would change out of their standards.

Thank you for the answer to that question. Too much Rock Band and Guitar Hero multiplayer has de-voided me of why BioShock never came up with the multiplayer in the first place.

You're right about media relying on crutches to come up with movie storylines, but I guess the gaming companies haven't realized that they don't need to rely on a crutch because they can give the "viewer" so much control, that the main character doesn't HAVE to save the world, or save an entire race. He could just possibly be completely awesome. But stories like BioShock and Portal (I'm sorry, I keep referring to these two as significant points) are way out of the box, and a storyline about fighting in a world war...if I wanted that, I could talk to my great grandfather. But Halo did have an interesting change in story until they bogged down when they moved from 2 to 3.

Those choose-your-own-story books were roughly the same: get out of __________ or suffer.

Taking Yahtzee too seriously is going overboard, and EVERY game can boil down to the repetitive motion, but many great games get innovated. LoZ: OoT was amazing only because you were so stuck on Link ACTUALLY being a pixelated 8-bit character, not a 3-D polygon.

Yes, video games are becoming increasingly sophisticated, getting high production values, and taking on more than just the simplistic worlds. But when it boils down to it, you buy a game for the story/feel of it, and get hooked to the music and characters. I will admit, I own the BioShock soundtrack.

MAG may very well be an epic fail. Who knows?

 

[tikiwargod]

You bring up a point here, and a good one at that. I see the FPS genre as evolving as technology does, allowing for more and more realistic games. Most developers these days tend to want to make their games more realisic then the "last one". Some may have succeeded at this, while others have failed. What I would like to see, is an FPS game where they incorporate more immersion and more adventure into it. I like the FPS games where you are not stuck to a course towards the "mothership" or the "rich Saudi sheikh". I would like to play an FPS game where they tell me what I have to do it, and then I go out and try my best to do it. This may not mean that I have to secure this checkpoint, or guard this caravan, but can mean I go straight there and see what happens to my inexperienced character.
I guess what I am saying, is that I would enjoy a lot more freedom, to not be stuck to the confines of "The Standard Gaming Book of Rules: FPS Version".

Despite the many complaints aimed at far cry 2 it allows you to do exactly that, you are not confined to a single misssion, you can select the one you want it is a merging of fps and rpg which is exactly what Lobsterkid101 is talking about in his op, this is where games are heading and I think that the execution is going to drasticly improve in the next few years.

 

[NeedAUserName]

Arcade FPS where you attempt to make various kinds of comboes and whatnot, get bonuses and powerups, where the scoring and not mere completion of the level is the goal. (as in The Club, but FPS)

I hated The Club, its was terrible, I should have taken the hint, when I was able to buy it in a deal, were it was £15 when I bought another game, (so I bought the cheapest second hand game in the shop (Because thats how I roll)) I got Star Wars Battlefront 2, which was probably better then The Club.

 

[goncalobms]

I think the OP has a point ... however so does ranger19.

I think we should not ignore some people do want the same game with a few cosmetic changes and a lot of people enjoy getting new maps for Halo 3. I think the success of Bioshock and Portal will be enough to fuel game developer to try something new and that innovation will come with time.

In the end a FPS is a FPS and if you want more than point and click to shoot there are other game genres. Hybrids of different game genres can also be found and people should definitively continue on experimenting with those ... but I wouldn't be so quick to deem the FPS genre as stale in innovation.

 

[Erana]

The secret is all in the gun itself.
At least, that's my opionion.

 

[ChocoCake]

Despite the many complaints aimed at far cry 2 it allows you to do exactly that, you are not confined to a single misssion, you can select the one you want it is a merging of fps and rpg which is exactly what Lobsterkid101 is talking about in his op, this is where games are heading and I think that the execution is going to drasticly improve in the next few years.

This is what I am saying.

I see the FPS genre as evolving as technology does, allowing for more and more realistic games.

I realize there may be games out there somewhat like what I have described, but not near to my expectations. And I have yet to experience Farcry 2, from what I heard, it did not do the story very well and took way too much just wandering around. I guess what I tried to describe in my earlier post, was that I want something like Pick Your Ending, like Mass Effect, but with more FPS-ness.