text:
Log in
Stories And Their Proper Place In Games
Posted by
on 2005/01/31 10:28:00
This has been discussed a little bit before now, but I'll bring it up formally. Here's an article at Slate about stories in games:
Summed up: Stories interfere with non-linear gameplay. Stories limit the life of a game and thus encourage you to buy new games. Stories cover up the gameplay--or lack thereof. Stories are bad.
#1 posted by
on 2005/01/31 12:11:30
<czgSux> please repost/edit it so it includes more sexual innuedo
lol czg is gay.
Pah editing now is stupid.
P.S. there's you're innuendo, silly Norwegian.
I Agree.
#2 posted by biff_debris on 2005/01/31 12:18:07
I had read a similar article recently, about how cutscenes (and the storylines they enforce) not only interrupt the play of a game, but inhibit the possibilities of said game as well. I think games should be treated more like environments than stories, settings with short-term goals and missions based on the environment rather than a overall goal (infiltrating a building to allow access across a bridge, that sort of thing). Of course when speaking of a shooter-type game (which I'm assuming, here), the basics must be observed, -- i.e., the Bad Guys Who Threaten The Peace, the Bad Monsters Of The Wild, the Heavily Guarded Ancient Power That Must Be Accessed -- in order to have something to shoot at and/or avoid, or else it turns into something like Myst, which sucks.
Let's Get This Topic Started
#3 posted by
on 2005/01/31 12:18:24
I thought the topic would be fairly controversial because the quality of a game's story is a sticking point for players, and it's important to set a context for most types of games. (E.G. Pacman compared with Undying.) Or do you people think that you can do away with stories altogether?
Questions for discussion:
* Would Half-Life 2 be just as good without the story?
* What about Quake, or Warcraft 3?
* Or a Final Fantasy game?
Well Whatever.
#4 posted by
on 2005/01/31 12:25:05
Once you read the fucking article, you'll notice the guy is annoyed with cutscenes as a way of taking the interactivity inherent in a game away from the player. This I agree with. This is (one of the reasons, besides sex) that HL2 succeeds, they never take control away from the player. (Except when the player is physically confined.)
His argument that the story is just a way to sell the same fps over and over again with different story is kinda void imho, as the story provides a
, which is a trillion times more important than the backstory, right up there with the actual gameplay which is (in most cases) not related to the story at all.
What am I trying to say? Nothing really. I don't like cutscenes but I can like a story if it's there.
I'm also a really bad writer.
RPG isn't even
one fifth
as sexy as Barney is.
Eh What Was The Story Of Undying Again?
#5 posted by
on 2005/01/31 12:27:00
Some guy goes to an island and there's ghosts and you for some reason have to trek around the entire place and then fight a giant vagina on a tiny isle?
#6 posted by
on 2005/01/31 12:30:29
czg. You're funny.
Undying's story: you're Irish, so you go to a friend's mansion and fight his dead siblings and travel to netherworlds and fight goons of the dead siblings.
#7 posted by biff_debris on 2005/01/31 12:31:59
I don't think a story is the same as a setting. A setting is the conflict which elicts the player's involvement in the environment, while a story is a line of situations that tie him to specific actions within the environment. A setting is a much more open-ended premise, while a story is series of often predictable and limited goals. So nyah.
So It's Like I Said.
#8 posted by
on 2005/01/31 12:34:14
You fight ghosts. (And a vagina)
Kinda like Pacman innit?
(Minus the vagina)
Half Life 2 Storyline
#9 posted by Mike Woodham on 2005/01/31 13:15:57
That's funny.
I played and really enjoyed HL2 - I didn't know it had a story until I started playing it. I didn't take any notice of the unfolding(?) story while I played it. I couldn't tell you now what the story was. I would happily play more. I play shoot-em games to kill things before they kill me. That is the story.
I support giving the player control of the game: start a cut-scene for those who want a story but let me hit Escape so that I don't have to watch it. I do remember the poxy-dog-training-me-waste-of-time in HL2, let me die while I learn how to use the catcher's mit but let me get on with the game.
That's why I still like Quake: all the levels are start, kill things, find the exit. Oh, and maybe find some secrets en-route.
Simple things please simple minds...
Some Thoughts Not About Vagina But About Stories
#10 posted by
on 2005/01/31 13:16:28
I think stories are a good element of the game. But how much will it take in the game is another question. It depends on genre, some need it more, some less. I think even fps games can be divided into two types:
real action
games (Quake, Doom) and less action games with story that is interesting to pass thru (Half-life). If you expect just to shoot and run you don't need any story, but if you're the player that likes to enjoy story-games instead of lot of gibs then you will be not satisfied with games without stories.
oooh what a crap did i say..
maybe i'll explain this point more later
Eh? Woah!
#11 posted by
on 2005/01/31 13:38:03
HL2 had a story?? You meet some people and go from A to B and the bad guy you see in the beginning on TV is the same bad guy you meet in the end. Oh wait, that prim bitch who's begging for a good shafting ends up sorta betraying you - that was the story.
HL2 had no story at all. It had a LOT of scene setting, and various vague and useless half-hints to make you think something was going on, but that was it.
The scene setting itself was a major part of the game, and one of it's strong points. It's not the same thing as a story but perhaps it has the same overall effect, a focus on narration and a cinematic experience.
As to RPG's original question, yes story can interfere with non-linear gameplay, but not necessarily so. E.g. Deus Ex, a stronger story than many and a lot of non-linearity within each section.
Trying to think of FPSs/3PSs with a story, actually....
#12 posted by
on 2005/01/31 13:41:38
Czg is right (when he isn't being a cock) - the summary is wrong. It it's about story, it's about the story getting in the way.
Example: We were pitching for a Dirty Harry license with an fps game. Everything was there, the magnum, bay bridge in the background, speech samples, throwing suspects around, yadda yadda. The only problem was that it still felt kinda generic fps and not very Harry.
Then someone decided to add a small cut-scene to the start of the level. Very short, it just saw Harry walk on, sup from a coffee cop, throw it away, pull out the magnum, then the camera zoomed into his head and you took over.
Straight away, people gained a sense of
they were playing. In a funny sort of way, they then provided their own story and cut-scenes from then on by playing the game in character.
My point is that story and setting can be good as long as they are about establishing a
for playing the game, and at the same time don't make you feel like a spectator. I think this is clear when you look at the games where the story works (hl, tetris, gta3), and doesn't (halo, vice city).
#13 posted by
on 2005/01/31 13:43:26
Even a preview can't save me. "It
about story..."
It Is Really A Matter Of Good/bad And Ugly
#14 posted by
on 2005/01/31 14:24:16
uses of cut scenes. To say cut scenes kill the game play is just too general a statement to have any real meaning. It is the integration of the story elements into the game play that makes it work or not.
From Maj's discription, I bet that that would indeed be a thrilling scenerio, close to the bone between drama and game play like in Max Payne where the game play was constantly being interupted by plot developments. I'm sure it annoyed some gamers but for me it worked perfectly.
I actually preferred Farcry over Half-Life 2 and part of the reason was the thinness of the HL2 narrative as compared to FarCry. The story to Farcry was action/adventure cheesy, but it was fun stepping into that big lug's shoes for those many hours of game play.
As for the main objections of the article:
Stories limit the life of a game
I have played through Dues Ex thrice so far and it is in the interest of finding out more about the underlying narrative that I have done so. From the message boards, I doubt I am atypical (on this point ;))
Stories interfere with non-linear gameplay
It is only through narrative that diverse scenerios involving subbases, Parisian catacombs, dives in Hell's Kitchen can have any chance of making sense in the same title.
The alternative to this is Quake and Painkiller which are really arcade romps in the first place.
Stories cover up the gameplay--or lack thereof
That is a matter of effective versus poor usuage rather than appropriateness.
#15 posted by
on 2005/01/31 15:25:26
I love metal gear solid 1, 2, and 3 because of their deep involvement of the player in the setting. However, the backstory given through the cutscenes is done so tastefully, that I never ever skip them :) Perhaps analyzing just those three games would yield alot of information about how to implement a story correctly. Of course, the linearity of the plot in those games is what makes them feel so cinematic, but the experience is enjoyable even for someone like me who plays QUAKEWORLD.
Tying Together Environments
#16 posted by
on 2005/01/31 15:41:27
It is only through narrative that diverse scenerios involving subbases, Parisian catacombs, dives in Hell's Kitchen can have any chance of making sense in the same title.
But that's really part of the question: Do we even need a story these days?
Sure, a story can lend a great sense of setting and purpose, but Tetris, one of the most enduring games of all time, had no story at all.
And you could strip away all of the story from GTA3 and still have a great game. Just have phones/characters who assign random computer-generated missions. This might even provide a longer-lasting game than the way it is now.
And does Quake even need a story, a backdrop, at all? Someone will say that you do to give the player a reason to kill all the baddies. But whether you have a reason or not, as soon as monsters start attacking you you're going to defend yourself.
Perhaps silly remarks, but maybe they'll generate a response.
HL2 Had A Story?
#17 posted by
on 2005/01/31 15:42:32
Well, nothing I'd call a real story, not what I'm used to anyway.
What about RPG games? An RPG game without a story is a coaster.
Cinematics are great, I loved Warcraft 3's cinematics, a real treat.
Quake has no story, but is the greatest game of all time.
Hexen had a story, 2nd greatest game of all time.
Bleh, good games are fun to play, end of story. (lol!)
Correlating Story With Realism
#18 posted by
on 2005/01/31 15:51:26
Now what about this: Has the continued integration of stories into games been wholly or partly responsible for the increase of "realistic" games?
Clearly, plotlines have become more and more integrated into video games since games were first created. Over that time, the character's abilities have increasingly approached the asymptote of realism. Some would say that realism is also responsible for the deterioration of gameplay over that same time period.
So if we did away with plotlines, would that decrease realism? A character in a non-story based FPS might not even be human, so people might stop pointing out the impossibility of him/it running at 1000mph and carrying 2 tons of ammo.
More silly ideas for comments.
Agreed With The Article...kinda
#19 posted by
on 2005/01/31 15:55:42
The author of the article makes a good point, and one I've always believed myself -- games are more fun when the player has created his or her own history and story just by playing the game in question.
However, I do think that that storylines and cutscenes are necesary in some games...Final Fantasy VII comes to mind. It was a great game on its own, true, but how blown away were you the first time you saw the cutscenes in it? And they weren't just there to exist on their own, they definitely helped move the story along and give you a sense of enrichment.
A few people have argued that Half-Life 2 really didn't have much of a story despite the fact that a good amount of time was devoted to scripted events. I happen to disagreee. Half-Life 2's story is what you make it...you're left to piece together the puzzle without it being spelled out in giant neon pink letters -- "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED." It would ruin the fun of the game if the narrative was like that.
The backdrop of the story of Half Life 2 is there, it's just up to you to give it a voice. Whether you piece it together like Hemmingway, or like Asimov is entirely up to you, and I think that's the point that the article makes. Games are better when you aren't told exactly what's happening, they're better when the story is told or imagined by the person who's taking part in it (the gamer)
#20 posted by
on 2005/01/31 16:03:40
It would help if you gave an honest opinion, rather than closing with these limp dicked "ahahah I'm only jiving lol" apologies.
#21 posted by
on 2005/01/31 16:11:28
Honest opinion: u suk phat cock lol
Honest enough for ya? Eh? EH??
Okay. I'm trying to get people to actually reply and have a discussion thread with more than 12 replies. If I suggest something plausible and don't label as possible pap, I suspect that people will take my word for it and not contribute anything to the thread.
#22 posted by
on 2005/01/31 16:22:48
...and I thought
was an egotist. Personally, I'm far more likely to argue with someone who I think is honest and right/wrong, rather than someone who's just throwing out argumentative bones.
Btw, penis.
#23 posted by
on 2005/01/31 16:24:13
hah, you said "bone."
...and "penis."
Going Back Over Some Of Those
#24 posted by
on 2005/01/31 16:27:34
I think GTA3 would be a better game if it didn't have the story. The game itself never ends anyway; as soon as you finish the last mission, the credits roll and then it dumps you back in the game to do as you please. Skipping the story and just adding computer-generated missions would make the game have even better longevity, IMO.
Quake feels like it needs a backdrop, but I think it could probably work fine without one. All of the custom maps released in the interim have done fine without a story, anyway.
And I think plotlines/settings are partly responsible for the deterioration of gameplay. They're certainly an extra layer of seperation between the player and the gameplay, and thus it takes a little bit longer to recognize a game's shallowness. Furthermore, having a story/setting based on realism will certainly generate some realistic games a la Rainbow 6.
#25 posted by
on 2005/01/31 16:46:18
Kinda doodling around RPG's point here, I'm thinking whether better graphics/sound are to blame for the increase in stories. I mean, back when your hero was a blob of primary coloured pixels, the game was inherently abstract, and so was any plot. In a way, the increasing sophistication of technology has demanded an increasingly sophisticated
, for which a story is the easy (only?) answer.
On a more concrete note, I actually think Quake would have been better off with a fuller story (and god I feel dirty saying that). Tying back into the first paragraph, I didn't feel the same thing as strongly with Doom. The extra realism of Quake demanded a more realistic answer.
Hrm... *ponder* *ponder*
Let's Try This Again
#26 posted by
on 2005/01/31 17:40:15
I wasn't impressed with HL2's "story" because there wasn't a whole lot of story there.
What about RPGs? An RPG without a story is like RPG with pants on. Well, RPG as in Rob, not as in RPG... you know what I mean.
Quake has no story, it's the best game ever made.
Hexen has a story, it's the 2nd best game ever made.
I enjoyed Warcraft 3's cinematics, they're a great treat.
Games are fun because they are fun, story or not. End of story. (lol!)
#27 posted by
cant map
on 2005/02/01 01:53:16
say fallout
great story written according to classic rules
yet pretty no-linear
btw makes me wonder who did the story for hl2
there are basic rules, and u can read it
yet they ignore them and pretty much fail
#28 posted by
on 2005/02/01 12:23:09
Games certainly don't need stories, at the same time I think the "game-medium" is a valid alternative to books/movies/etc for storytelling but to amek it work the qualities of the story has to make up for the gameplay sacrifices a story bound game has to make.
#29 posted by
on 2005/02/01 12:41:12
But if your point is indeed true, that still doesn't account for some games such as GTA3 where it might work even better without a story.
And these days there are some pretty abstract games (Katamari Damacy) that would probably be just fine without a story, too.
Not to mention Quake 3, which had perhaps the worst and most uninvolved story of any FPS ever.
#30 posted by
on 2005/02/01 12:43:03
But if your point is indeed true, that doesn't account for some games that might be even better without a story, such as my example of GTA3.
And these days there are some pretty abstract games such as Katamari Damacy that would probably be fine without a story.
Not to mention Quake 3, which has what is perhaps the worst story of any FPS ever made.
#31 posted by
on 2005/02/01 12:43:16
But if your point is indeed true, that doesn't account for some games that might be even better without a story, such as my example of GTA3.
And these days there are some pretty abstract games such as Katamari Damacy that would probably be fine without a story.
Not to mention Quake 3, which has what is perhaps the worst story of any FPS ever made.
<--Fat Man Bending Over To Moon The World With His Shiny Ass
#32 posted by
on 2005/02/01 14:18:46
This quote seems timely:
Story in a game is like story in a porn movie. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important.
- John Carmack
I personally think that the harder you try to make a game that's "realistic" (in whatever way people choose to use that term--whether it refers to our world, or another), then the more you will need to attend to "story" (whether that's an actual linear narrative or simply a sparse-but-feasible backstory combined with a logically interconnected environment). The two go hand-in-hand.
Stories do none of the negative things mentioned above if implemented well. Implementing them well is often difficult and time-consuming, and therefore often arguably more trouble than it's worth...
No Clear Answer
#33 posted by Scragbait on 2005/02/01 14:53:12
Painkiller feels a bit hollow without a story (what's presented as a story is so separate from the game that it is essentially absent - the cutscenes are like commercials and the game is the show). For a game that is to have an arcade action fun feel, this is fine.
On the other hand, AvP2 was really helped by the unfolding stories for each species. Without the story and the mission objectives that fleshed it out, this game would suffer unbearably and would lose the fear and tension. The mission pack was far less satisfying as it felt too arcade-like and didn't use pacing like the initial release nor could it have much in the way of plot due to its short length.
I like stories in games and while cutscenes are okay (Deus-Ex 1&2, WoT, AvP2), I find the best overall experience is where the story unfolds within the game (Half-Life, System Shock 2) and requires that players who want a story put some effort into extracting it by eavesdropping, paying attention to scripted sequences and snooping around for notes, PDAs and emails. Those less interested could just barge on and ignore these things if they choose.
One step better would be to combine the in-game story telling with the multi-branched outcomes of Deus-Ex. I'd like to think that this is the future but Games-as-Movies seems to offer more shareholder value.
Does Stalker weave a story or is the story the one you create by your own in-game choices?
#34 posted by
cant map
on 2005/02/02 01:29:09
Painkiller needed a story to show u topless chick
I guess
yay for stories
<-- Someone Cut A Slice Out Of The Sun!
#35 posted by
on 2005/02/02 10:06:02
That Carmack quote is kind of irrelevant IMO. I prefer porn without a story. I know what I'm watching and why, now just get me to the good parts.
I do agree that more-realistic worlds tend to demand a more involved story or background, but I don't think games with intricate stories have proven themselves to have the never-ending and extremely non-linear gameplay that has been seen in games where the story/background is less important (e.g. Tetris and GTA3). And that said, GTA3 would have a huge benefit from increased realism (i.e. 100% of the world being interactive, more details, etc), but as I have said I don't think the story is important at all to its gameplay.
#36 posted by
on 2005/02/02 13:10:21
Story is rather important part of the game these days, but not the main (I speak mostly about FPS now). If the story becomes the main part, the game looses the game process itseft. It turns just into an interactive book/movie where you just watch the story and nothing more.
#37 posted by
on 2005/02/02 13:18:58
Seems the writer just want's to see gamse-at-heart instead of simulations or games paralleling life.
#38 posted by
cant map
on 2005/02/03 03:05:49
another game - mororwind
has story\plot (whatever is the best word)
nonlinear too
#39 posted by
on 2005/02/03 10:54:13
Anyone who has watched a Russ Meyer film can tell you that some porn doesn't need a story, and some porn is better off for having one.
I'd Rather...
#40 posted by
on 2005/02/03 11:07:43
play a game that with a background(a detail one won't hurt), while not forcing me to follow somekind of plot(actually most games have somekind of plot but the designer may make the player seldom notice them).
Intelligent Comments.
#41 posted by
on 2005/02/03 12:43:37
I'm referring to the original article here, not people's replies.
1. Story is not the same as scene-setting / immersion / background fluff. The former describes what is actually happening in the game and your role in it. The latter is stuff that has happened or is happening around you that provides a broader picture of the world (and may not progress at all, like a story inevitably does).
For example, HL2 had almost no story. However, it had a vast amount of scene setting / fluff. Painkiller had some sort of story, but no fluff nor coherence whatsoever. Personally I prefer the latter.
Neither story nor fluff is necessarily realistic (and note that "coherent / convincing" is a different concept to "realistic").
2. One issue is not that how the story or fluff is presented. As the article author suggests, excessive cutscenes that break the action can be tedious (and can actually be less immersive as you step outside your FPS for a while). On the other hand, seeing scenes as part of normal gameplay can make a story or fluff smoothly integrated with the game - however then the player might easily miss or dismiss them. A compromise is to have some mandatory periods of interaction where you retain FPS control, but people interact directly with you for a while. A la HL2 and indeed D3.
3. Another issue is what gameplay goes along with the story/fluff. I assert that a strong story / strong fluff is perfectly compatible with both open-ended, player driven gameplay, and frantic action gameplay. However, it is true that most story / fluff driven games tend to be linear experiences with progression spoonfed to the player and the story / fluff rammed down their throat - HL2 being a prime example. And I agree with the author that that is not good, whilst it does enhance the cinematic experience, it detracts from the gameplay both in gameplay fun and in replayability.
On the other hand, some games do break that mould. Deus Ex is a prime example as both one of the strongest story-driven games AND one of the most open-ended. There's a huge amount of interaction and scene-setting, almost all of which is experienced appropriately through the players eyes, but also a huge amount of choice how one plays the game.
I can't think of an example that combines hardcore action with a good story/immersion....but that doesn't mean it isn't possible. Imagine if HL2 had some route choices and some proper monsters and no sprint function etc. It could work just as well. The fluff can be going on around you just the same. Same with Doom3 - basically if there were more monsters and less Imps spawning up your arse and no vertical mutant owl neck, it could have hardcore action that would combine perfectly with the fluff and immersion and intense atmosphere.
In fact, I think that a story can enhance the action, enhance the playability (and, if implemented right, make the replayability good too). The key I think is for the game to be driven by it's gameplay and how the player interacts with the world, and for the story to fit around that and for the fluff to spice it up and set the scenes for you. That way you can feel more like you are IN THE GAME, whilst feeling in control of how you play it. Not for the game to be driven by the story as the player is dragged on train tracks through a series of scripted experiences. As is too often the case.
Thus, I think, this issue is an example of where the games industry often does something wrong with the concept of stories/immersion, not because the concept is intrisically wrong, but because they mis-use it.
I Wouldn't Call Valley Of The Dolls
#42 posted by
on 2005/02/03 14:18:22
It Seems Like
#43 posted by
on 2005/02/03 14:24:41
this thread slowly turns into 'Stories And Their Proper Place In Porn' thread. It's ungood.
Deus-Ex 2
#44 posted by Scragbait on 2005/02/03 14:43:03
I know Deus-Ex 2 lacks the RPG depth that Deus-Ex had but it actually does a very good job of offering a good mix of story and open ended gameplay. A good story game tends to have a slower pace as you spend time looking for information and talking to anyone who will talk with you.
If you forgive DX2's compromises that they did to suit X-Box, you might find that the in-game immersion and it's decision matrix structure allowing you to somewhat direct how the story unfolds, then you might see it as a suitable template for future games. After finishing DX2, I had to get readjusted to the much less personal gameplay of other titles.
I'm going to play Thief 3 soon and see if it has a similar style.
#45 posted by
on 2005/02/03 16:48:27
Russ did Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, but it's not very representative of his oeuvre anyways.
#46 posted by
on 2005/02/04 00:29:02
In a non-linear game, a story is
How many of you have played Freelancer? It's a space combat sim where you get your little ship, start in orbit around such and such a planet (New Fredonia or something stupid like that), and you get to hyperjump around the galaxy killing pirates, upgrading your ship, ferrying cargo, and running missions for cash.
It was a terrifically fun game because it was so totally non-linear, but at the same time there was a story going on you get involved in, of slowly escalating galactic military and political importance. You'd have a story-related mission, the mystery would unfold, and you'd get to go off for a while until the story people radioed you and told you to meet them on such and such a world in three days.
There is eventually the
Final Mission
where big alien shit blows up, the galaxy is restored to normalcy, and you get to keep playing after the final cutscene.
It's at this point that the game becomes totally pointless. You can go anywhere and do anything, find all the little side quests you missed, but you have zero motivation to because there's nothing after it. It's like you've finished the peach, now you're sucking the pit.
Fallout 1 and 2 were the same way - you had total freedom in the world, but there was always Vault 13 somewhere on the horizon, which gave all your free wanderings a purpose. Stories don't interfere with non-linearity. Non-linearity
some kind of overall structure, something you're working towards, to make the exploration it affords worthwhile.
Good Point
#47 posted by
on 2005/02/04 07:38:38
I was playing Morrowind last night again/still, and was trying to decide when I actually wanted to start the main storyline, which shows another option that's not used very often.
In Morrowind, your primary quest-giver, emperor's -agent guy pretty much tells you, "Go out, have some adventures, gain some experience, join some factions, have fun, and come back and let me know when you're actually ready to start the game." It's almost that explicit.
Many people have admitted never returning and even forgetting where the guy is.
#48 posted by
on 2005/02/04 07:41:19
Just realized I never made my point, which is that Morrowind is unusually fun while you're just screwing around and exploring, but it indeed feels very different and focused once you actually start the main quest, which provides an overall goal and focus.
Non-Linear Stories
#49 posted by
on 2005/02/04 18:16:52
Hell, look at The Sims. The Sims is 100% about creating stories about your characters living out their lives, and EA has little control over your story compared to in a FPS.
I Will NEVER
#50 posted by
on 2005/02/04 19:18:09
look at Sims.
Sorry, Pushplay
#51 posted by
on 2005/02/04 19:20:14
but you have to put a line in the sand somewhere, or else the diabolical forces in society will just walk all over you.
#52 posted by
on 2005/02/04 19:22:46
So what happens in Morrowind when you complete the main story, and then go back to slumming around the World? Do you get bored?
#53 posted by
on 2005/02/04 19:30:20
I loved this game when I bought it (weeks ago), but I haven't played it in awhile. I guess it's partially because I've been busy with Q1, and yeah it can get boring, but most often I don't even follow the main story, just been exploring, adventuring and fucking around.
#54 posted by
on 2005/02/04 21:04:48
Do you get bored?
Well...not so bored that you stop playing, at least if you're me.
But when I was trying to beat the main storyline for the first time I was kind of obsessed with it for a few weeks, and couldn't wait to get home and play, and didn't get enough sleep, and all that sort of thing.
At this point I've beaten it twice, and have a couple of different characters that I'll just have wander around from time to time (and amazingly, I'm still finding new quests and dungeons and there are still factions that I have never even joined).
I'm not so bored that I've stopped playing--it's a beautiful game, and mods and plug-ins add to it--but, for me, a structured plot with progressive goals and events added a strong sense of pleasent urgency and tension that is no longer present; the game has become more passive and less involving with the loss of story.
In #51
#55 posted by
on 2005/02/05 17:16:12
I meant The Sims is evil in the same way that Rainbows and Ponies are evil, not the way EA is evil, of which I wholeheartedly approve.
You must be logged in to post in this thread.
Website copyright © 2002-2020
John Fitzgibbons
. All posts are copyright their respective authors.


text:
REGINA — The Saskatchewan Roughriders added some veteran talent under centre Thursday, signing former NFL quarterback J.T. O'Sullivan.
The 32-year-old played with 10 teams over nine seasons in the NFL. He was named the San Francisco 49ers' starting quarterback heading into the 2008 season, completing 128-of-220 passes for 1,678 yards and eight touchdowns.
O'Sullivan also threw 11 interceptions, fumbled 11 times and was sacked 32 times in starting eight games.
A sixth-round pick of New Orleans in 2002, the six-foot-two, 232-pound O'Sullivan threw for 1,866 yards and 13 touchdowns to go along with 39 rushing attempts for 145 yards in his NFL career.
The former University of California-Davis quarterback finished his Divison 2 college career with 10,745 yards passing and 94 touchdowns.
The Riders also added three defensive backs Thursday, signing Macho Harris, Talmadge Jackson and T.J. Rushing.
Harris was a fifth-round pick of the Philadelphia Eagles in the 2009, starting 15 games for the club at free safety that season. The 26-year-old finished his rookie campaign with 43 combined tackles and two passes defended. Harris has also spent time with the Washington Redskins and the Pittsburgh Steelers.
Jackson, 23, has spent time with the Baltimore Ravens and was most recently on the practice squad of the Jacksonville Jaguars.
Rushing was a seventh-round pick by the Indianapolis Colts in 2006. The 28-year-old return specialist totalled 1,300 combined return yards during his NFL career, including a 90-yard punt return for a touchdown versus Oakland in 2007. He won Super Bowl 41 with Indianapolis.
The Roughriders also announced they have released the following import players: quarterback Matt Johnson, offensive lineman Clint Oldenburg, linebacker Alvin Bowen, defensive back Jamaal Fudge, defensive back Justin Wilson and defensive line Dario Romero.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
When I create a new entity class and want to have more than one List in it, Xpert.ivy says: "If an entity class has more than one collection you have to use 'Set' instead of 'List' as type."
I think the JEE Persistence API does not have this limitation.
asked 14.08.2014 at 11:32
The JPA itself also has this limitation if the list's are eagerly fetched (which is like this in ivy). Eager means also all entries in the list's are fetched/loaded if the main entity is loaded. If there is more than one list, all relations are loaded with a big join (bad performance) and then jpa (hibernate) has to find the entries for each list, but then this list would have multiple entries of the same id because of the big join, so it is necessary that the type is Set.
The advice is to use no mapped by relations if not relay necessary, because this results in very bad performance.
IF you now load just one employee (e.g.
answered 18.08.2014 at 12:41
Christian St... ♦
This does not solve your problem but is some information to understand your problem:
In JPA there is no such restriction but:
When defining entities you should use 'set' instead of 'list' for collections.
This follows the exact same rules as using different collection types anywhere else throughout your code. You could use Object or Collections for all your references, yet in most cases you use more concrete types.
For example, when I see a List, I know it comes sorted in some way, and that duplicates are either acceptable or irrelevant for this case. When I see a Set, I usually expect it to have no duplicates and no specific order (unless it's a SortedSet). When I see a Collection, I don't expect anything more from it than to contain some entities.
Solution: Change all collections to sets when used in a domain-class.
answered 14.08.2014 at 13:38
Daniel Oechslin
Its a bit strange..
The method
(14.08.2014 at 14:12) HaraldWeber
Well that's a good question. Maybe ivy wants it as easy as possible so they tried not to confuse a user with different collections. We should wait for an ivy-team asnwer...
(14.08.2014 at 16:51) Daniel Oechslin
Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates hereBy RSS:
Markdown Basics
Asked: 14.08.2014 at 11:32
Seen: 1,581 times
Last updated: 18.08.2014 at 12:41


text:
This first tab below is a statement made on behalf of The Jockey Club and relates to The Modern Slavery Act 2015 for our financial year ending 31st December 2019.
The second tab outlines our Tax Strategy and how we are committed to meeting our tax compliance obligations.
This statement is made on behalf of The Jockey Club and relates to The Modern Slavery Act 2015 for our financial year ending 31st December 2018. The Jockey Club has a zero tolerance approach to modern slavery of any kind within our operations and supply chain. We all have a responsibility to be alert to the risks, however small, in our business and in the wider supply chain. Our employees are encouraged to report concerns using our Whistle Blowing policy and management are expected to investigate, and where necessary act upon, these concerns.
The Jockey Club has been at the heart of British Racing for many years and today is the largest commercial group in the sport, comprised of four main operating brands, which between them mean we are involved in virtually all aspects of the British Racing Industry.
These are:
- Jockey Club Racecourses - our racecourse arm
- Jockey Club Estates - our training grounds and estate management
- The National Stud - our breeding and educational arm
- Racing Welfare - our charity
We are also unique for a commercial business in that we don't make profits for shareholders. Instead we invest all profits back into the sport to support its long term health so British racing will continue to be enjoyed by millions for many years to come. The Jockey Club employs over 600 permanent people in various locations across the UK. In addition, there are thousands of temporary workers employed directly or indirectly by our partners and suppliers to service peaks of high demand at major horse racing meetings and other events.
In recent years sustainable and ethical principles have become increasingly important to us which are reflected in our supply chain. Our products and services are predominantly sourced via UK providers. We also have joint ventures with key providers including catering. We expect the joint venture managements to share our intolerance on Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking. E.g. Jockey Club Catering is a joint venture with Compass Group UK, an organisation with an equally strong stance.
Relevant internal policies include Environmental, Health & Safety, Whistleblowing, Equal Opportunities, Sustainability, Bullying and Harassment, and Purchasing amongst others and provide a means of raising concerns, and as appropriate redress without fear of reprisal. Our management structure for each site ensures that we can directly implement our policies and procedures, conduct appropriate training and monitor compliance.
All Employment Contracts and Casual Worker Agreements since 2016 include reference to MSA15 and The Jockey Club's compliance with it. All employees who have contracts pre-dating 2016 have received information regarding the Act and particularly drawing attention to the Whistleblowing policy. The information is available in The Jockey Club's Employee Handbook and on The Jockey Club's intranet.
Our Group purchasing policy requires evidence of a suppliers' compliance with MSA15. In 2017 we received confirmation that our top 80% of supplier by spend comply with the Act. Our requirement to comply with the Act has been written in to our standard terms and conditions as well as larger group contracts meaning that all new suppliers are bound by the requirement as well as capturing current suppliers when they renew their contracts. It has been made clear to all suppliers that any breach of our agreement could result in immediate termination of that contract.
We recognise that our suppliers can have complex supply chains and consequently it is challenging to monitor or control the working conditions of individual suppliers. We aim to reduce supply chain complexity to enable easier facilitation of these risk factors. We are assessing which organisations fall in to the highest risk and assessing how best to further challenge these suppliers to ensure they are committed to the Act.
We understand that Modern Slavery risk is not static and will continue to mitigate this risk on an on-going basis.
In addition we will review and assess the effectiveness of our policy annually and take appropriate action, if required.
Areas for consideration:
- Employee training levels
- Supply chain communication
- Supply chain auditing
- Investigations into reports of Modern Slavery and remedial actions taken
- The new supplier form includes a link to MSA information for our suppliers
This statement is made in accordance with Section 54 (1) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 for the financial year to 31st December 2018.
Signed by Simon Bazalgette, CEO of The Jockey Club
Date: 16th April 2019
The Jockey Club UK Tax Strategy
The Jockey Club is the largest commercial Group in Britain's second largest spectator sport. It operates 15 of Britain's famous racecourses nationwide, including Aintree, Cheltenham, Epsom Downs and both the Rowley Mile and July Course in Newmarket, as well as other related enterprises amongst other concerns such as the National Stud, Jockey Club Estates, Jockey Club Catering, Jockey Club Live and our charity Racing Welfare.
Our vision is for British horseracing to be the best in the world for many years to come and for the sport to be accessible for millions of people in the UK to enjoy. As an organisation, we are committed to acting with integrity in all our business relationships and this informs our approach to taxation.
Tax compliance and reporting
We are committed to meeting our tax compliance obligations and will seek to apply diligent professional care and judgement in our tax compliance activities. In order to achieve this, we have a well-resourced finance team and work with external advisors as appropriate to provide additional support, ensuring we are kept up-to-date with any legislative changes that may impact these obligations.
Approach to tax planning
Like any other business activity, any action or lack thereof with implications for tax will be considered in light of the potential impact on our reputation. We will not undertake any activities relating to tax, or accept any level of tax risk, that would result in damage to our reputation.
Tax decisions are aligned to business and commercial strategy. We may respond to tax incentives and exemptions where appropriate and in a way that is consistent with HMRC and government policy. As appropriate, we will seek external professional tax advice to ensure we apply these incentives and exemptions legitimately, and if appropriate, we will seek advance clearances with HMRC to ensure we minimise the risk of uncertainty.
Governance and risk management
We understand the importance of having a strong corporate governance framework that ensures the accountability, responsibility and ethical behaviour of The Jockey Club. The board of Stewards and Finance Committee provides oversight in ensuring that tax is considered within the wider context of the business and in how tax risk is managed. Compliance and risk matters, including those concerning taxation, will be included on the agenda at board meetings as appropriate.
The Group Finance Director has oversight and responsibility over The Jockey Club's approach to tax on a day-to-day basis which includes the identification, prioritisation and monitoring of tax risk across the business, as well as the escalation of tax risk to the board of directors.
The Jockey Club adopts a low risk approach to tax, as with other areas of the business, in line with our established governance and risk framework.
Relationships with Tax Authorities
The Jockey Club is committed to working with HMRC in an open and collaborative manner, much like any other stakeholder of the business. Wherever possible, we will seek to achieve early agreement on issues and we will keep HMRC up to date about any commercial developments and events in our business that may have a tax impact.
We will also seek external advice in respect of any matters of complexity and will work with HMRC to ensure that any differences of opinion in respect of the application of the law are resolved.
This Tax Strategy document
This document meets the requirement for the Group to publish its Tax Strategy as required by section 161 and section 16(2) of Schedule 19 of Finance Act 2016. It is effective for the year ended 31 December 2019 and covers all of The Jockey Club's UK Group companies.
This Tax Strategy has been developed by the Group Finance Director.
Approved by the Board on 5 December 2019.


text:
Star Wars The Last Jedi was the political film we needed.
Warning: spoilers inside. Don't read if you don't want the plot ruined.
'Hopepunk' seems to be a fairly new term, coined by Alexandra Rowland, which serves pretty much as the opposite of 'grimdark'. Hopepunk can show the darkness but at its core it has, you guessed it, hope – and The Last Jedi fits that genre perfectly.
In some ways The Last Jedi was a messy film, but that's okay. We got new tricks with the force that we'd not seen before (which was a delightful surprise to be honest, as each generation should explore the force more) but we also got a whole load of nothing happening. Things just kept falling flat, which actually made for a superb drama. Luke was a complete disappointment to Rey. She barely got any lessons and he was a man broken by the force, the Jedi and his own moments of doubt and fear. Kylo Ren too spent much of the film doing absolutely nothing but talking. Hell, even Finn and Rose's little side quest resulted in absolutely nothing – but it was still needed.
Rose and Finn managed to free a herd of abused animals. Their adventure showed them the realities of war and even when they faced execution, they still stayed true to what they believed in. It was a huge film for Finn. He started out wanting to run away (again) but he committed, and was ready to give his life to a cause he still wasn't certain would win, but he was willing to risk it all anyway. Luke did some soul searching and found some peace before the end – not just in the force and the legacy of the Jedi, but in himself.
In the end, the resistance barely manages to escape. It's an act that claims Luke's life. At the end, Rey is left to wonder if they really are enough to take the fight to the First Order and to Kylo Ren, but as Leia points out they are the start of hope. A resistance has to start somewhere and that they are together and risked their lives matters. That Finn risked his own life matters. That Rey turned away from Kylo matters. That Vice Admiral Holdo gave her life so fifty could survive matters.
What really matters throughout though is the history. Some of the people in this fight have been there throughout one war already. They saw the Jedi fall to laziness, greed and complacency. They allowed the Sith to rise in the first place and they fought one war to clean up that mess. Now, another has arisen and this latest threat is none other than the child of Han Solo and Leia. Ben Solo should have been a symbol of hope. His treachery should have crushed them, particularly when few knew the true story of how he turned to the dark side, but still they keep on fighting. Still, his mother kept on fighting because no matter how much she loved him, she knew it was the right thing to do. While Han did…well, whatever Han ever did, Leia became General Organa and inspired (as well as led) a new resistance into the start of yet another war. The film showed Leia's sacrifice. She was tired of watching people die around her, but she also understood that sometimes there was just nothing else to do.
"Still, his mother kept on fighting because no matter how much she loved him, she knew it was the right thing to do"
The film was also brilliantly feminist. Poe Dameron got subtly shown up by both Leia and the Vice-Admiral when he was insistent his reckless attempts to play the hero were the right way, when actually it was just a chance to give himself some glory. It was the Vice Admiral who saved the day and was the true hero. Rose was a quiet character truth be told, and hints at a relationship with Finn will likely upset those who had their hearts set on Finn and Poe, but she played a vital role and showed Finn what it meant to stand up. Rey too showed up the men around her. She told Luke some home truths he needed to hear, and she even tried to find some good in Ben Solo. Ben didn't deserve it in all honesty. Bad men shouldn't keep needing good women to turn them around and so it was right and fitting that it ended up with a true struggle for power. Rey would not compromise who she was. There was pride too in her story. She wasn't given a forced connection to Ben through her parents. They were nobodies, and she just happened to know the force. It was a brilliant and empowering twist that saw Rey finally claim her own story.
The Last Jedi showed women standing up, starting the resistance and men struggling to keep up in their wake. It was a great film in that it had all the twists many would have hoped for, but it actually stayed true and delivered them. It centred hope but it also explored the agony, pain and ambition behind that tiny spark of hope. This was a truly political film. After everything, there was no reason to believe in the Jedi. They represented an establishment that were aloof and ignored so many, which allowed the extreme right of the Sith to rise. Yet, still, some believed. Still, they had hope even if they couldn't see it because to just give in would not be right – even if it cost their lives. They didn't truly know what they were fighting for, but they kept fighting because they saw the horrors of what surrender would mean for the galaxy.
It was a story hinged on hope, which so easily could have given way to despair. At times, so many characters nearly did. It was a film delivered in a year when so many can't see the other side, when there's doubts about the Democrats, when Brexit looks a like a void of hate and when the world seems unable to take the action needed to save itself from climate change. Still there is resistance. Still, even when so much is unknown, so many groups are coming together and trying to make a difference. The Last Jedi was a film for our time, but it was also a necessary lesson that for when we doubt, when we think there is no hope, we still have to keep going because then we're the ones who are creating hope and inspiring others. Let The Last Jedi cement the legacy of hopepunk; for what lies ahead we're almost certainly going to need it.
If you enjoyed reading this article, we'd appreciate your support, which you can offer by buying Stand Up a coffee here.


text:
Last week, I rediscovered my Enchanted Forest Biscuit set, which I had completey forgotten about.
I had so much love for these bunnies over on Instagram, that I thought I'd better let you all know how I made them! I didn't just stop at bunnies though.. ho (ho ho) no…
The recipe is so easy. You can jazz them up as much as you like by adding orange zest, spices (ginger, mixed spice, cinnamon etc) vanilla, cocoa etc… but I went basic basic basic.. and they were delicious!
Here it is – this recipe makes around 20 cookies (depending on what size your cookie cutters are.)
225g Butter
110g Caster sugar
275g Plain flour
1. Pop your oven onto 170°C
2. Cream the butter and sugar together and beat until light and fluffy.
3. Add the flour and combine together gently until you have a dough.
4. Stick the dough in the fridge for an hour.
5. Roll out your dough to the thickness of a £1 coin and cut out your cookies
6. Place them on a lined tray and stick them in the oven for around 12 minutes, or until they are golden brown. (My bunnies were done after 10 minutes, but my houses needed around 13 minutes, so keep an eye on them.) Cool on a wire rack.
7. Decorate!
You can decorate your cookies however you like. I usually make my own icing, but on this occasion I used Dr Oetker Designer Icing, which comes in a squeezable pack with four different sized nozzle fittings you can attach.
It was a bit precarious (disastrous) at first, but I got better and better with every cookie. There were several rejects, which didn't matter at all as I'd made loads.. AND, it was a great excuse to eat them. (DESTROY THE EVIDENCE. I AM DOMESTIC GODDESS.)
I'd bought some Lindt dark chocolate, which I melted in a bowl over a saucepan of simmering water.. and I'd also managed to get my mitts on some edible glitter. Which was ridiculously fun. And ridiculously messy. (But that could just be me.)
I made the eyes/holes with a straw. Easy peasy.
I used some simple string to hang up my cookies on my Christmas tree, but again, you could use anything you like – ribbon, pretty string, wire… anything goes!
I love this idea for a cheap and gorgeous way to decorate your Christmas tree.. and guests love picking off a cookie (or two) to nibble when they come round to visit!
You'll be the talk of the town.
I was. But that could be because I was covered in glitter.
p.s. The reason I haven't linked to my biscuit cutter set, is because I can't find it available anywhere! I originally bought it at Recipease, but they don't seem to be stocking them anymore… Ihave had lots of requests so am doing my best to find them – I promise to let you know when I do.
But in the meantime, please don't despair – there are loads of super cookie cutters and biscuit cutters about – here are a few I found on my searches…
Follow Poppy Loves! You can receive my posts by email here or you can follow me on BlogLovin.
Poppy Loves is a London lifestyle blog - please do get in touch if you'd like to be featured.


text:
By Mark Trevorrow, from The Sun, Wednesday, October 15, 1980
Anything but disappointment will greet the long-awaited Flowers' debut album, "Icehouse" (Regular). Lead singer and songwriter Iva Davies joked recently that the Sydney band had once been told they'd never make it with their chosen name. But with Davies' talent as a writer, the instrumental tightness of the four-piece group and with Cameron Allan at the producing helm, Flowers were destined to be big.
An arresting debut hit called "Can't Help Myself" - very cleverly released on 10-inch disc - sailed into the national Top Ten and established Flowers as a strong new force. And that dreaded "one-hit-wonder" tag has been firmly swept aside with the release of the follow-up single, "We Can Get Together", a song that will perhaps eventually show itself as a classic Australian record.
Certainly, "Icehouse" is a milestone. For once, the product more than lives up to the hype that so often precedes - and then destroys - the long-term success of local great white hopes. The packaging, too, with its luxurious gatefold cover, featuring superbly understated graphics, further enhances the total creative unity of "Icehouse".
On vinyl - where it all stands or falls - producer Cameron Allan, together with Iva Davies, has imparted an amazing, suspended quality all the way through. Davies' vocals add to the listening pleasure of this unusually fine first album... like the music and the instrumentation, he just never lets up. "Icehouse" opens with the haunting title track, with its deliberately menacing and slow synthesisers, leading straight into the pure techno-pop of "We Can Get Together". The next track is just as unexpectedly different... "Fatman", a compulsive straight rocker. "Sister", "Walls", and side two's "Skin" are popular numbers from Flowers' live set, and on record they lose none of their electricity. An interesting reworking of "Can't Help Myself", opens side two with a much busier and fuller sound than the original production.
It's not until "Sons" that sax is introduced, and that alone helps Geoff Oakes's solo to highlight "Icehouse"... the tinkling sound of a piano breaks through for the first time, too, on this, the closest thing to a ballad on the LP. Just when you think there couldn't be more good stuff, the three final tracks jump out to ambush the listener. "Boulevarde" has all the magic of the two singles taken from the album - will it be the Flowers' third chart hit?- as does "Not My Kind", the closing song. In between is "Nothing to Do", with its strong acoustic folksy feel that is both a refreshing change and a delight in itself.
The approach of Flowers to everything that bears their name - and now "Icehouse" - seems to sum up entirely the final arrival, after so many false starts, of Australian rock music as a major world force.


text:
Global Reinsurance co-editor Lee Coppack welcomed Warren Cabral, lead insurance partner of Appleby, Spurling & Kempe; Rob Lusardi, executive vice president and cfo of XL Capital; Dan Malloy, president and ceo of Stockton Re; Tom Heise, president of the Bermuda Commodity Exchange and our Bermuda correspondent Roger Crombie to a discussion about risk financing and risk transfer held at Waterloo House in Hamilton Bermuda.
Lee Coppack: There seem to be more conferences about securitisation than there are deals done. How do you see the relationship between insurers, reinsurers and the capital markets today? Do you ultimately see the insurers and reinsurers becoming almost a distribution arm of the capital markets?
Tom Heise: The risks that I am focusing in on the cat side have certain characteristics that require broad distribution of risk. The capital markets have not had access to participants that this can be spread among on a much larger base, which will allow for much more predictable and consistent pricing. That is not only needed - it will be beneficial to the industry - but it is not going to change what these insurers and reinsurers do.
Warren Cabral: Somebody at a primary level is still looking at the actual thing which could be knocked down by a hurricane and making evaluations which get filtered through a distribution system.
Rob Lusardi: Banks worked through the same cycle 10 years ago. You could use the same argument now. What do banks do? They basically originate loans but they package them up, sell them off and do not keep any of the risk. Are they really just a conduit for the funding or financing for their capital flows? Yes and no. They still underwrite the risks, and at some point if you do not do that properly, you cannot package up and sell off the loans.
Roger Crombie: The risks have always been there. There has always been commercial risk, financial risk, credit risk. There have always been country risks if you are an international organisation. I think what we are looking at is different industries finding different ways to underwrite that risk. The way in which you cope with it depends on what is available in the market. I think the market is shifting more than the nature of risk is shifting.
Warren Cabral: Perhaps you question - certainly at the primary level - where within an organisation will you find the person assessing the risk, whether it is going to be a banking type of person or an insurance type person. I think at the moment it is still insurance type people.
Tom Heise: They are both the same people. It is just they call them analysts versus underwriters. It is the same discipline. There may be different ways to train insurance underwriters to give them more information to allow them to do the business better, but whether you are analysing foreign currency exposure or cat exposure in Florida, the fundamental thought processes and fundamental education background are identical.
I think the foreign currency is a tremendous analogy that insurers could really understand. This market in its current form is less than 10 years old. This is a trillion dollar a day market. Yet, 10 years ago when Ford was building cars in Detroit and selling them in France and paying for parts in dollars and selling them for francs, they had a huge exposure. Now, they can hedge that.Who is taking the risk between US dollars and French francs? You have underwriters or analysts, whatever you want to call them, that along with their traders, trade these dollar contracts and franc contracts all day to make sure that Ford can lock in precisely the amount of francs they are going to get for the dollars they put into that car before they deliver the cars.
Roger Crombie: So that risk was uncovered ten years ago?
Tom Heise: Essentially. The Wall Street firms in certain private, individual deals would help, but there was no market for them to hedge in, so they did it very rarely. Now there is a market for them to hedge in.
Dan Malloy: There is a lot of discussion about insurance looking at capital markets type approaches, yet somebody who has hedged religiously all their exposures for the past 10 years, sits down and says: "Wow. I just spent a lot of money. I would have been better off if I had not hedged at all. If it had not been for these damned shareholders wanting me to explain deviations every quarter, I should not have hedged."
Sometimes, it is like this: Maybe we should sell you a 10 year hedge rather than a one year or 30 day hedge. This gets back to what I do every day on finite risk. It is the classic case where someone looks back and says: "I have protected myself too extensively over the past five years, because the way this product is sold is that I get a chance to make a decision once a year, and the risk that I am protecting against are extremely remote, so I have to over-buy. Every year, I over-buy. I over-buy, over-buy and after five years, I think - Gosh, I should not have done all that."
Tom Heise: Technically, there is no market for you to go in and out of during the year.
Rob Lusardi: What that basically says is that there has been no true value added in the product. Pure risk taking is a low value-added product. On the other hand, the problem is that it could ignore the true value of insurance which is spreading risks. If someone says I am willing to keep a risk myself, that is fine if there is truly no value in the product, but they are not able to get the law of large numbers to help spread the risk. They are just taking it directly.
Dan Malloy: There is the basic question: What is your tolerance for pain? What I ask people is: Try and look at it prospectively. How would you do things differently if you were left alone for five years? If you could report once every five years to your board, your shareholders and your regulators, what would you do differently, given you understand your business better than anyone else? That is where the idea comes from: I should lay off some of my exposures as a prudent businessman to the portfolio, but there are others that I should manage on my own account. I am happy to take the five year economics where I cannot manage the 90 day economics, given the unpredictability of the results.
Lee Coppack: How much of this hedging and securitisation is a result of diminished appetite for risk and volatility in the equity market? Is that what's driving it?
Tom Heise: Exactly the opposite. Most investors subscribe to the portfolio diversification theory, that the broader the diversified portfolio, the better the returns and the lower the risk. As they are presented with these new products, they look for additional risks that they can take. By doing that, they might, in their aggregate capital base, be a more efficient source of capital for insurers or any other participant to use. They tend to drive it. The insurance industry, because of its massive capital base, has not been as susceptible to the advances of the traditional investors. They have typically said: "You have got two choices: public stock or, on occasion, private stock when we form a company." But investors have never been offered the risk itself, because it has been very profitable over time and the insurers do not want to share it.
Particular risks, be they cat that the insurers do not want, have created the first opportunity for the insurance industry to willingly provide to others some of the risk that they have wanted to keep for themselves entirely. Now that has happened, through that small opening, the representatives of these large investors tried to get other risks. So the march is on.
Rob Lusardi: I think Lee was asking a slightly different question: Whether as a car manufacturer or an aircraft manufacturer by insuring away the volatility to an insurance company, are you are really taking the volatility away from the equity investor because he wants steadier, smoother earnings? I am not sure that is the case. I think there are some risks that an equity investor really did not buy into. If he buys stock in a car manufacturer or an aircraft manufacturer, he wants the risks and rewards of that business. He does not necessarily want the risks and rewards of foreign exchange, leasing or interest rate movements. He wants to either get the profits from manufacturing a car or the losses or whatever, but there is no value to him in the volatility associated with ancillary businesses.That is the essence of the British Aerospace transaction. They manufacture aircraft, and they got into the leasing business in a backdoor way to help them sell aircraft. They took losses on the leasing business. At the end of the day, they transferred their risk over to a group of insurance companies on that business and the stock price went up tremendously because shareholders were now able to participate in their basic business, the business they wanted to own.
Warren Cabral: What is the long term effect of the transfer of the cost of that?
Rob Lusardi: Well, each company is different. In that case, the cost of the premium for the insurance policy was nominal relative to the loss the shareholders had actually borne in the past. If what you are saying is over time - are there friction costs or is it worth the transfer of these risks either to a group of banks, insurance companies or the capital markets . . .
Warren Cabral: The natural implication of the smoothing is that you actually bring down the overall.
Rob Lusardi: In principle. It is like option theory. You are taking out the peaks and the valleys and you get a steadier stream of earnings.Warren Cabral: You are achieving a mean but not necessarily a higher average.
Tom Heise: Oh, no. You get the higher average by taking a group of means in different categories and putting them together.
Dan Malloy: You are saying the average purchaser of a stock would rather . . .
Rob Lusardi: . . . would rather buy that company's basic business and see a steady flow of earnings. That is why the whole concept of enterprise risk is coming into play, because a cfo or ceo really does not care why his earnings stream is interrupted, whether it was a liability catastrophe, property or some form of financial problem. He would rather just not have the issue to begin with. That is slightly different from getting out of a business that is ancillary and transferring that risk.
Dan Malloy: I have found that most people value stability and predictability only on a relative basis, in terms of how they are being evaluated by the market on a day to day basis as part of a peer group, typically. The cost of absolute stability and predictability probably gets you back to risk-free in some near perfect world, and if they want to make that investment, they buy US bonds.
Rob Lusardi: Although if you look at pure options theory, a company that has more volatile earnings but ends up at the same place is, in theory, worth more than one that got there in a very steady fashion, because there is a chance that you will have a huge peak relative to the company that is steady. But that is theory, and the practice is very different.
Dan Malloy: Few people's constitutions bear that out.
Tom Heise: The idea of valuing a business is labour applied over time, so what you would like to do is allow the business to make its money by applying labour over time and take out all these other elements of risk that are unrelated to the business that it is in. If you can keep the rest of the business essentially risk free, and allow it to create the value by applying the labour over time for whatever it is doing, then you have a very efficient means for investors to get the value that they are looking for, whether it is from British Aerospace or from Ford - or from an insurance company.
That is, I think, the biggest thing for investors to do, particularly with cat risk. An insurance company has a very difficult time providing the capital necessary to support the needs of being able to pay for cat risk relative to taking it. If you can separate that away from the insurance company and give it to investors who really want it, then the insurance companies can focus on businesses where their underwriting and their skills can add a lot more value and take away, essentially the volatility that is totally outside their control and requires a huge amount of capital to sit essentially idle in the potential of this event happening.That is where the value can come from bringing in these investors, which the investors want because of the diversification. They can own the risk without owning the company, and owning the company can have risks other than what it does. The business can be doing just fine, but the value of the shares can drop for reasons that are wholly unrelated. For an investor to be subject to risks like that in addition to what the company is doing, cannot be very useful.
Roger Crombie: Somebody said earlier this week: "It is not about risk; It is about price." If you say to a businessman: "I will relieve you of all your risks except the pure business risk of whatever it is you do for a living," of course, he is going to want that - at the right price. At the wrong price, he would rather take his own risks.
Tom Heise: But there are two components to the price. There is the cost of assessment and accumulating the risk, and the cost of the capital that has to be available for the risk.
Rob Lusardi: What I find interesting is that the cat bond market is actually less efficient in terms of pricing than the reinsurance market. The largest part of the market were people who are basically taking the bet that there would not be a loss and that the return versus the probability of loss was much higher than any other type of fixed income instrument they could buy.
Warren Cabral: The Warren Buffet model.
Rob Lusardi: Or the hedge funds. Now that liquidity has dried up, the hedge funds are gone from the market. The cat bond market has not dried up, but it is probably half the size it was a year ago. My big fear is that there is an event - the one in a 100 year event - and the market dries up, even though people were paid 400 basis points above LIBOR and on average in 99 years out of 100, they are going to make a fortune investing in this type of security.
If you look at other asset classes that have been securitised, whether it is credit cards or mortgages, you really do not have the risk of loss of principal that you have in this particular end of the insurance market. Ideally, the other end of the insurance market should be securitised - the workers' comp, the auto physical damage. I find it interesting that it is this end that has been developed, and there are two arguments why it has. One is that, as Tom was saying, it is more efficient to have lots of investors taking the hurricane risk than it is for one or two companies. The other reason is that the returns were there and the marginal investor, the hedge fund, was buying that risk.
Dan Malloy: Maybe the capital market was falling into the same trap as the insurance market. The insurance market runs from losses. You get burned in one area; you move up to another area. You say: "Well, I got burned on the first layer, so the top layer probably looks better for me, and 99 times out of 100, I am actually going to be right. Even if I am wrong, I actually have a chance to escape."
Getting back to the efficiency of capital, holding workers' comp reserves on your balance sheet in an undiscounted basis is just a horrible thing to do as a US insurance company. They should be selling those off via reinsurance or securitisation to really make themselves more efficient.
Warren Cabral: And free up for additional underwriting.
Dan Malloy: Right. Free up for additional underwriting or free up for catastrophic reserves. One of our brethren on the island is quoted a year ago in one these roundtables as saying that opportunities for price discovery in the property cat market are few and unpleasant.
Tom Heise: There is price discovery because there are not multiple buyers and multiple sellers. The explanation why in this current environment the cat bond market will never be more efficient than reinsurance is that reinsurance has multiple buyers and sellers, which make a market and create opportunity for price discovery. However, the one time profitability for bankers, brokers and lawyers of cat bonds is far in excess than it is for products which are standardised. Without standardisation you are not going to have multiple buyers and sellers and you are not going to have any price competition.
Warren Cabral: It gets back to the risk assessment on a standardised product - the difficulties of risk assessment on a standardised product versus a special cat bond or whatever.
Tom Heise: They are the same to the extent that the products aredealing with models or indices. However, with the bond, every one is different. With the standardised product, you go through the difficult process once, and then you can replicate it without any additional cost. With the other product, it stays at 100%. Without that replication, you are not going to have the repetition of the multiple buyers and sellers and have a competitive price. That drive towards those bonds and one-off type deals is what kept this market from being anything other than new distributors of traditional insurance products. It does not get any of the efficiency of the capital market involved.
Lee Coppack: So why are people not securitising workers' comp?
Rob Lusardi: The only answer I can think of right now is that it is more profitable for insurers to keep the risk. Plain and simple. Ultimately, I do not think that will be the case. Wall Street is spending a lot of money trying to securitise everything that moves. The last great frontier appears to be the insurance industry. I have a quasi cynical view, since I helped lead this effort back when I was at Lehman, which is if Wall Street has enough people spending enough time and enough money to create a market, it is going to be created.
Dan Malloy: You can will it into existence. Rob, you raise a good point. The capital markets are forcing macro changes. The insurance market does not exist in its own bubble. It is part of a larger financial market. The demutalisation of the life insurance companies and the corresponding restructuring of their balance sheets with the wholesale sell off of blocks of business to offshore reinsurers is a securitisation effectively. They are recognising today the value that would emerge over 10 or 20 years and locking it in with a structured reinsurance transaction with someone sitting in Bermuda, for instance, who is able through a different accounting and, dare I say, regulatory regime, to carry on their balance sheet those same reserves more effectively than the onshore taxed, regulated and overseen insurer.
Warren Cabral: A UK life insurer did exactly the structure you just described into a Guernsey reinsurer.
Roger Crombie: Someone made the point that it is the insurance companies that will always end up taking the risk, because that is their business. Capital markets are not interested in risk.
Tom Heise: No, they are insurance companies for the stock market, for the energy market, for the agricultural market, for the banking industry.
Roger Crombie: So they are looking to package the thing and lay it off to you.
Tom Heise: The investors are the insurers. They are the insurance industry for the other two thirds of the GNP of the world. That is the connection that is not being made. In the ones that are easy to securitise, the insurance industry has said: "No, it is profitable. We are keeping it."
Dan Malloy: Wholesale defaults of reinsurers' obligations to clients was one of the significant parts of the process of the market tightening in the mid 1980s. The idea of setting up companies with very, very significant amounts of capital was a way of reassuring customers that they should be insuring these exposures again with credit worthy and stable markets. When you look at the whole Bermuda phenomenon, ACE, XL and later CentreRe, the idea of an insurance company actually holding what it wrote for its own account and managing risk through the use of judicious and intelligent policy wordings and underwriting was pretty revolutionary when these companies started up. Once they were successful beyond probably the market's initial wildest imagination, everyone decided that was the risk they wanted to take as well. Everybody then moves on and suddenly this huge amount of capital becomes almost a millstone.
Rob Lusardi: It gives us other opportunities.
Dan Malloy: Right. But you cannot stand there and fight in the trenches with that capital base in that same line of business, because it has spawned a lot of imitators and a lot of wannabes.
Tom Heise: But the standardisation gives certain disciplines. Risk quantification will hopefully prevent the type of aggregations that occurred in the 1970s and 1980s in the reinsurance market. It will not allow the massive defaults to occur. There is no element or fundamental theoretical difference between what was done in the 1970s and 1980s and what we are doing in the 1990s and the next decade. It is just applying some of the disciplines and slightly changing the structure and form of the contracts to allow that to occur, but fundamentally there is no difference.
Dan Malloy: For a really catastrophic event - one in a 100 is not even the right number, but maybe one in 250 or one in 500 year events - there are probably very few people you want to take a promise to pay for the second or third one. As recently as 1992 and 1993, the unthinkable occurred: Andrew, Northridge, Iniki. The world was not prepared for that. I know the attention span of the market does not seem to extend back 10 or 15 years back to experiences learned but we are now talking only five or six years.
Rob Lusardi: I think one of the reasons, as an example, that USAA did do a cat bond is because they did remember back. One benefit you get out of a cat bond or risk securitisation is that pool of capital is yours, and you do not have to worry about it having been leveraged or whatever, the insurer route. That is also one reason why it is very inefficient. It is not efficient to use a dollar of capital and segment it for one risk.
Dan Malloy: That's the beauty of an insurer. Leverage and judicious application of the portfolio or, I guess, in the broader markets, margin.
Lee Coppack: It worries me that people are so anxious to say cat events are uncorrelated with other asset classes. In the UK, we had a huge hurricane and Black Monday in 1987 within a few days of each other. That may have been happenstance, but if you had a major disaster in the UK that wiped out a lot of businesses, it would have an impact on the banks because loans would not be repaid. How do you see that?
Rob Lusardi: In theory, it is hard to figure out what the correlation would be between a Miami hurricane and a risk in the UK, as an example, but this is one thing at XL we look at. What are the correlations you did not think of in the past? What is the correlation on the asset side of your balance sheet? What bonds would be wiped out if there was a hurricane or an earthquake somewhere? What would your equity portfolio drop to if the economy of a certain country got wiped out for two or three years as they were rebuilding?
Dan Malloy: Or if inflation picked up for some reason.
Rob Lusardi: But the probability of the event occurring is what people are saying is uncorrelated. The probability of a hurricane is completely independent of the probability of other insured risks. If it was a large enough event, like an earthquake the wiped out the western half of the United States, then you could go down a chain of thought that - the US government would just have to spend money to rebuild and, therefore, it would be borrowing more and it could raise interest rates, and, therefore, the value of bonds would go down. If you bought a cat bond, in theory you could lose on the cat bond and you could lose on your other bonds, so they are correlated, but it would take a very dramatic event, given the size of fixed income markets and currency markets.
Tom Heise: The weather catastrophes we are talking about are random. The events that would lead to financial despair in equity or fixed income markets are not random. The convergence of the most unlikely event that can be calculated combined with the most unlikely event which cannot be calculated is possible. That is why if somebody says there is zero correlation, it is incorrect. It is very close to zero but you cannot identify it. Nobody knows when earthquakes or hurricanes are going to happen. That, in and of itself, is extremely valuable, because you know that if interest rates go down, we know it will have a negative impact on equity markets in a certain way, but it will cause no hurricanes or earthquakes. That direction is what most people focus on.
Warren Cabral: What then is the role of modelling and who has got it right? Everybody you read about has a different model.
Rob Lusardi: Modelling has become more sophisticated - value at risk and general financial models. The problem is that it is so sophisticated that everyone has the same models, so the model says if a 10 standard deviation event occurs, you simply sell, and what happened in October was that everyone's model said the same thing and everyone sold. You got the dollar dropping by 20% in two days, because everyone's model and everything was inter-related.
Warren Cabral: A self-fulfilling prophesy.
Rob Lusardi: Right. It is just like portfolio insurance back in 1987. It worked on the model and everyone hit the window at the same time.
Tom Heise: What is interesting about that precise example, coming back to the margin, is that in the equity option market in Chicago, the way they margined equity options was not sufficient to deal with that circumstance. That was almost a catastrophic situation for that market and for the clearing entity that cleared all those transactions. Luckily, people stopped pushing the sell button.
The clearing firms were looking to clearing houses who were looking to the traders, and the securities that were pledged were not sufficiently liquid or sufficiently there to deal with people keeping their finger on the sell button. That is why I am so sensitive to this clearing issue, having lived through that equity option crisis of 1987. We will not have the benefit of being able to tell God or whoever controls hurricanes to stop blowing the wind, like we get the Fed to tell some of the big firms to stop pushing the sell button.
Roger Crombie: Conversely, the market would do well to have a couple of major events - soon.
Dan Malloy: We are in an interesting time where people are sailing close to the wind by their own admission. The industry is in the pain phase where people do not have much ability to manage their own results through releasing back year reserves. You get a little hurricane like Georges which hits Puerto Rico, which is the classic case where everybody has models but the models did not work that well. The nature of the losses as they emerged from Georges did not follow the patterns that people would expect, so you have people that bought industry loss covers that would be triggered at a $5 billion event suddenly having losses much larger due to the nature of insurance practices and the development of Puerto Rico.People have much larger net losses from Georges than they would have had if a loss two or three times greater had hit the mainland. There is still some variability in this whole process. Again, there will be winners and losers out of that. Some people will have benefited from their thoughtfulness in doing it, and we will also see pockets of unpleasant surprises emerging quarter after quarter, as people say: "Well, it happened to me."
Warren Cabral: Perhaps it is a leading question, but who are the survivors or who are likely to be the survivors?
Rob Lusardi: Capital markets will be one. If, for whatever reason, reinsurance companies or a large portion of them simply go out of business, whether it is a large event or whatever, we have seen that Wall St can recapitalise these companies very, very quickly. If there is a natural demand, which there always will be for insurance in one form or another, I hate to say this but it almost does not matter. If there are no survivors, new companies will be created very, very quickly.
Warren Cabral: Out of the ashes.
Tom Heise: It is just a matter of how it is created. Is it going to come in through private equity or is it going to come into the commodity markets? It is just a little cheaper and a little quicker to use the commodity markets. It is what the agriculture, energy and banking industries use. Every time a bank goes under, they do not run around and capitalise new banks. Another bank goes into the capital market and gets sufficient capital to make up for the lending which that bank no longer can provide. If 1992 reoccurred, I would suspect that instead of all the private equity coming out and forming companies, the capital would re-emerge either through existing entities or through new entities that did not require private equity.
Rob Lusardi: There was a point probably from 1987-90 when it was very difficult to capitalise a reinsurer. The window was really closed for new reinsurers at that point. Since then, it is more and more rapid. In fact, one of the things that I worry about now is that I see a number of companies that are basically insurance or reinsurance business plans that are going public.
Dan Malloy: Actually, they will trade at more attractive valuations if they do not have any business!
Roger Crombie: This is something I do not understand. We are awash in capital and yet Warren is incorporating big, new companies as fast as he can get the documents into the registrar. What are the new insurers seeing that the old insurers are unable to see and are, therefore, returning capital to their shareholders?
Rob Lusardi: I think there was a difference in the last go-around. In the mid-1980s, capital was being raised to meet a need and the need was capacity in property cat. You could not get liability capacity. You could not get financial guarantee capacity. It was just a whole series of capacity shortages that had to do with past issues that the insurance companies had to solve. In this go-around, it is trying to be more efficient. Maybe someone has a better idea or think they have a better idea, and Bermuda is a good place to implement that idea for regulatory and other reasons.
Tom Heise: There is $200 billion of venture capital out there looking for a home, so guess what? You have a good idea and a decent track record, a couple hundred million can be yours.
Rob Lusardi: That's right.
Lee Coppack: In future will there be much more fluidity among the players in the insurance and reinsurance market? Will people come in and leave?
Tom Heise: It is just the opposite. There may be different people, and they may be in different places, but when the rate justifies the capital, the capital will be there. When the rate does not justify the capital, the capital will go elsewhere, so there will never be a point where there is a need for insurance at a good rate and there is not money for the companies to capitalise themselves to write it. That is what this combination of capital markets and insurance will produce.
Rob Lusardi: If there ever is a case where the capital will not flow for whatever reason and there is still a need for the insurance, then that will be solved through self-insurance, risk retention groups, setting up the next ACE or XL of the world.
Dan Malloy: Fifty like minded companies get together and each chip in $10 million.
Lee Coppack: The idea traditionally is that with professional reinsurers you were dealing with the Munich Re, the Swiss Re year after year. You seem to be suggesting it may look different.
Rob Lusardi: It will look different on the margin. The Munich Re and the Swiss Re will clearly always be there. There have been a couple of large, new reinsurers who have a large enough capital base to give a sense of comfort or belief that they will be around years from now to pay up when the claims come through. The issue that we are discussing is what happens with the smaller, mid sized or new companies.
Dan Malloy: There are a number of companies out there with $500 million or below that are solutions in search of problems, right now. The business plan that they set up to execute does not seem to be able to produce the kind of returns that the market is expecting in the long run.
Roger Crombie: Is there not a back up with you, for example? If there is a pool of capital out there that is not performing as well as it might, that this might interest you for your growth purposes?
Rob Lusardi: If the pool of capital is not yielding an attractive re


text:
Commissioned Artworks
Commissioned paintings created specifically for art collectors who love the artworks of Canadian painter, Brandy Saturley. These are custom works created after many consultations with each client. Capturing special events, occasions, locations and people that are significant and important in the life of the collector, corporate anniversary, or organization.


text:
PLEASE keep your letters to 250 words maximum giving your name, address and daytime telephone number - even on emails. Email: firstname.lastname@example.com. Write: Swindon Advertiser, Unit 1 and 2 Richmond House, Edison Park, Swindon, SN3 3RB. Phone: 01793 501806.
Anonymity is granted only at the discretion of the editor, who also reserves the right to edit letters.
Empire caused misery
I think we should be cautious when evoking similarities between general historical atrocities and the Third Reich, with the latter's deliberate attempt to exterminate whole peoples.
Nevertheless it remains true that Steve Thompson's description of the British Empire is correct, and Jeff Adams' rose tinted apology is not. It was an Empire on which the blood never dried, and its legacy includes immense misery even today.
Mr Adams cites India, as an example of a place where gratitude is due. But Britain deliberately destroyed an advanced economy.
From having 23 per cent of the world economy 200 years of depredation reduced it to three per cent.
Don't take my word. In 1783 a Commons Select Committee reported "the natives of all ranks and orders" had been reduced to a "state of depression and misery."
"In former times Bengal countries were the granary of nations, and the repository of commerce wealth and manufacture in the East… our misgovernment … within 20 years many parts of those countries have been reduced to the appearance of desert."
Lack of space prevents a full answer to Mr Adams' celebration of the railway system in India. A leading historian concluded British motives in building railways in India were "sordid and selfish … the promotion of interests of British merchants… " there purpose to "assist the exploitation of the natural resources of India." And with breath-taking Chutzpah Mr Adams urges gratitude for the abolition of slavery. In fact, two pillars of the industrial revolution here were slavery and theft from India.
From the start of the slave system there were revolts, small, big and massive and the scale of these revolts made slavery unsustainable by the 1830s. And at home opposition to slavery was a core of the radical working-class movement.
After the wreckage of colonialism in Africa decolonisation left in place pliant rulers who would deliver wealth westwards. Big western-based businesses are still bleeding Africa today.
Peter Smith, Woodside Avenue
Pay rise no solution
I am sure that those working in the public services will welcome their (recently announced) pay rises of between two and three per cent – even though it still does not compensate them for the decade of pay restraint they have suffered since the financial crisis in 2008/9. It certainly will not do anything to address the present problems facing all public services.
Several questions need to be addressed because all public services face similar problems. There is a shortage of trained frontline staff – and there is a problem with recruitment and retention. They are bedevilled by a deluge of 'rules and regulations' that have little relativity to the reality of the job. They are overburdened by a burgeoning bureaucracy and an autocratic administration that consider their systems sacrosanct. And they have the Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads in the fear of litigation.
So, do we, the public, want proper public services? If so, we must be prepared to pay for them – but they should not be wasteful. Why are so many functions of public bodies outsourced to profit-making companies? If such a company can make a profit, why cannot the 'not-for-profit' public body provide it cheaper? And why are the 'systems' designed to produce statistics for the 'bean counters' rather than designed to serve the user's needs?
Parliament must address these issues before our public services collapse.
Malcolm Morrison, Retired Orthopaedic Surgeon, Old Town
Letters to the Editor: What do you think?
Do you have an opinion on our reader letters? Get in touch.


text:
Rascal Does Not Dream of Bunnygirl Senpai (anime)
2707 E. Washington Ave
Madison, WI
Puberty syndrome – Abnormal experiences rumored on the internet to be caused by sensitivity and instability during adolescence. This year, Sakuta Azusagawa, a second-year student at a high school near Enoshima, meets several girls that are experiencing this "puberty syndrome." For instance, he meets a wild bunny girl in the library. She turns out to be an actress on hiatus, Mai Sakurajima, who is also his senior at the school. For some reason, no one else can see this enchanting girl. How did she become invisible…? The Hawthorne Anime Club was created to give people a place to gather, watch, and talk about Japanese animation. Each meeting will include screenings of everything from classic titles to new releases. The club is aimed primarily at teens and adults. Films are shown in Japanese with English subtitles. Refreshments served at each meeting. Call ahead to reserve your spot! People under age 16 who are interested in attending are required to have a parent present or to have a signed parental permission slip.


text:
Lian Li TU150 Mini-ITX Chassis Review (Page 1)
The Lian Li TU150 Mini-ITX Chassis might appear to be a tiny box, but it's packed with features like you wouldn't even believe.
Introduction, Specifications, and Pricing
Lian Li has made some very notable cases over the years and equally a few not so great ones along the journey. Today we are looking at something that could turn out to be the rightful successor to the now-aging Mini-ITX entry from Lian Li. The TU100 which we looked at back in 2013. That case scored relatively well as it simply did not have the capabilities and features even possible at the time compared to what is offered today. Today we get to look at the TU150 from Lian Li.
The TU150, much like the TU100 is a Mini-ITX in a style of what would be called a 'LAN Box.' A LAN box is a miniature portable rig which in some cases employed a handle for more comfortable transport. The TU150 similar to the TU100 applies a handle, however where the TU100 used to have a solid handle which folded over, the TU150 recesses creating a much cleaner final top appearance.
The TU150 has some cool features, one being the ball and socket connection system for the exterior panels. This allows for easy removal and reinstallation of the panels for cleaning or system maintenance. Also, the use of a tempered glass main panel means a modern internal aesthetic along with proper masking to hide internal cabling. Another neat cable management trick is that Lian Li allows the top panel where the handle recesses to hide wiring as well.
The TU150 carries a part number of TU150WX which denotes that our model has a window 'W' and is black 'X.' If we had the black version without window, it would be TU150X. Now the TU150 also comes as an optional silver color which would change the suffix from 'X' to 'A.' The TU150 come in at 312mm height, 375mm depth, and 203mm width. This is quite a compact chassis, and it is designed to be as tiny as possible while offering a robust platform for a mini gaming rig.
The motherboard fitment is Mini-ITX or DTX compatible. DTX is probably a less common one for most as it's an ITX model but longer. HDD and SSD fitment is up to 2x 2.5" SSD's or 1x 3.5" and a 2.5" SSD. There is no PSU shroud as the PSU is moved to the top right of the chassis and is hidden from view by black internal masking on the window. PSU fitment is SFX or SFX-L, standard ATX PSU's do not apply as there is not enough room for it.
Cooling fitment, of course, will be somewhat limited. Fan fitment is all 120mm based with a filtered opening on the front and one on the rear. There are also dual-fan ports on the bottom of the chassis which could help with overall system cooling and evacuating heat from around a high power GPU. Radiator fitment is limited to the rear-mounted 120mm. GPU Length is limited to 320mm and CPU cooler should you opt for air cooling would be 165mm, which is somewhat surprising being the compact nature of the case. One thing to keep in mind is the TU150 while being an impressive case, it comes with no fans, so it truly is a DIY build with you as the builder keeping in mind and budget some room for fans.
The TU150 comes to market with an MSRP of $109.99, which places it in very interesting territory. The original TU100 is still apparently available and comes in at $119 which is astonishing considering the age of the chassis. Other competitors in the range are finite as trying to match features such as a handle and tempered glass, and we quickly find a lack of options.
One case that sort of matches although a much different form factor would be the SilverStone Milo ML08, but that is more of a console-sized enclosure with no windows for component viewing. Another two options would be the Phanteks Evolv Shift or even the NZXT H210 non 'i' version. I can say that the TU150 is genuinely a bit unique as it is hard to find a genuinely parallel competitor so we will have to take those as our litmus test.
Shannon's Chassis Test System Specifications
- Motherboard: ASUS ROG Strix Z390-i (buy from Amazon)
- CPU: Intel Core i7 8700K (buy from Amazon)
- Cooler: Corsair Hydro Series H60 (buy from Amazon)
- Memory: Corsair Vengeance Pro RGB CMW32GX4M4C3000C15(buy from Amazon)
- Video Card: MSI GeForce RTX 2060 Gaming Z (buy from Amazon)
- Storage: SanDisk M.2 256GB
- Power Supply: SilverStone SX700-LPT Platinum 700W SFX-L (buy from Amazon)
- OS: Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64-bit (buy from Amazon)
Last updated: Nov 15, 2019 at 01:16 pm CST