Our Review Scores Are Changing

LTTP pov: I really miss the star score reveal animation at the end of the review videos, but this change is probably for the best since it felt like the reviewers didn't truly/naturally score in terms of stars but numbers. For example the EZA description of "decent" instead of "good" for 3/5 stars reflects more of a numbers grading. Stars are weighed differently imo, I don't think of 3/5 stars being the same as 6/10, kinda more like a 7/10. And while I like the "masterpiece" description for 5/5 stars, if there was any inner questioning on whether such a score carries some flawless/perfection significance (along the lines of "since 5/5 stars means 100%"), then that's a numbers view and so all the more reason to just use numbers. Though with this change, I hope to see some flawed masterpieces get 10/10, 10/10 isn't 100/100 ;)

I do think that a 20 point scale, like your are adopting, is more flexible than a 10 star scale like you had before. I just don't think metacritic or opencritic should be a factor. If you give in to the errors other people commit, who willl fight against it?

Miguel Pires Ramos

Thank you, I've wanted this changed since day one. I would still like you guys to be on a 100 point scale but this is definitely a step in the right direction

X-Play.. Those were the days.. Anyone remember Judgement Day? Good times.

Gan Khef

I never really cared either way (though I am glad this will create a more consistent internal lexicon), but I am very impressed by your willingness to listen to those who do. Props.

Gan Khef

I don't want things to hover over 6.5 the whole time lol

El Roberto

I commented on YouTube, but basically I think the 5 stars gave you the freedom to give LOWER scores. Just don't feel bad about handing out a 3 or 4 where need be.

El Roberto

Games that are a 10 to me are Zda

Brandon Martin

Who do you think pays them?

Brandon Martin

This is a good change. However I would that have you guys just get rid of numbers all together! Games are worth way more that just a number. Let your words do the talking and who cares about sites like that track other people’s review scores!

Brandon Martin

POOL'S OPEN TIME TO SWIM in 7s

Andrew Silverman

I think you guys are caving in for a lot of fan requests I dunno. Do your thing.

bantastic

Or you could do both! ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ 8.8

Cliff Boyd

Even with the star system (a 10 point scale) in use, they still all think in a 100 point scale from the GT days. Better to just go ahead and use it. You hear them talk about it all the time, and I think it actually benefits them in their evaluation process even if it doesn’t necessarily have substantial meaning to a viewer. Although, even most viewers are trained to think in a 100 point scale. It’s how I think most of us are used to being evaluated in grade school. There’s a difference in our minds between an 87 and an 81 on a test. Considering the depth of their game evaluation, I believe this level of detail is warranted.

Cliff Boyd

I agree 100%. I think it could have served the Allies to put different words with each 1/2 Star. For instance: 3 Star = Decent, 3.5 Star = Good, 4 Star = Great, 4.5 Star = Excellent, 5 Star = Masterpiece. This might have helped the audience know what the Reviewer intended with the score they chose. All in all though, I'm happy that they are moving to the 20pt. scale.

Alex Castellanos

So it's now a 10 scale? Will you still get to use your top score once in a while?

Star Tsurugi

I didn't mind the stars, but I do have a slight preference toward a bit more granularity. The one thing that did bother me about the stars was the description in one/two in particular: how you jumped from Decent (3.5) to Excellent (4). For me, personally, something "decent" is slightly inferior to "good", which would be below "great", and then "excellent", for example. And those things do have an effect on how your opinions on something are perceived, even if you what you really want to convey is that a 3.5 can be good, maybe even very good.

José Fernandes

I will miss seeing those stars, reminded me of X-Play...But the reasons are valid. I understand.

drd7of14

The kind of people who find the score more important than the review itself will always find the score more important than the review itself. Except now instead of looking at three and a half stars as a 70 (or worse if they're bad at math, trust me I've seen it) when the critic thought of it more as a 75, the score accurately reflects their feeling on it. I also don't see why people think if there wasn't a score people would magically then watch and pay attention to the review more, most would just go find a score on another site, because that's what they're personally interested in or have the time to check.

MBUN

I absolutely hate the Eurogamer.net style "scoring" system and I really do think it is more unfair than any other. I mean Recommended is a worthwhile game, Essential is, well, essential. Anything else? Not worth my time. Simple as that. They got rid of the scores to resolve the "less than 8 is not worthwhile" problem while in fact this made it even worse IMHO. I think badges etc. is a good complimentary mean of scoring a game, but falls flat as a main one. I will happily read through a 6 or 7 out of 10 review, I'll read through reviews to find out why one game is a 6.5 and the other is a 7, but I won't touch one that just says nothing instead of a score (Eurogamer.net style) or says mediocre. It's a dead review to me. Let's just all agree that we should trust the reviewer is competent when he hands out a score. Otherwise it's a cop-out ala Eurogamer.net.

As long as your reviews validate my opinions I’m happy.

I support your decision, in the end you are the ones that have to feel comfortable giving out a rating when doing reviews and I will seek the information I feel is more valuable from frame trap or other discussions formats you provide. BUT, since this is the one and only time I feel is fitting to comment on it: In my opinion this is a missed opportunity to give an overhaul to an outdated format. Going to a number scale even feels like a step back, not only because you had it before (as a 100 scale at gametrailers) but also because of what it stands for. A Review should explain what a game is about, what is engaging about it and which parts are lacking, and your reviews do this quite well. If you wanted your score to be more expressive it could have been done through badges or some sort of way to get these points across. One game excels in multiplayer and another one in world building or storytelling. What is the benefit of giving one game .5 over an other one, when they are both "great", just in different ways? (And I am not even starting to talk about giving a "final" rating to games that are changing every week and not having a way to express vastly different opinions in your group be part of the "official easy allies review" of a game.) I think this change's only upside is that it is better matched with the review aggregators, which is fair enough, if it draws more people to watch the actual content. Anyhow, this is with 100% L&R! Keep up your awesome work - I am very much looking forward to your new Reviews and what else is in stock for your third year!!

David

I am slightly torn, but I think I understand. Personally I liked the star system of grading, as it brought a certain style and definition to the EZA brand while informing me of the quality of a game. However it ultimately makes more sense to have a metric based score system for the general public. Not to mention the EZA reviewers will be able to precisely & distinctly label the overall value of a game now. In either case the Easy Allies reviews will continue to have top notch critical judgment for video games. However (and this is very important) I would like to insist that Easy Allies reviews retain the word designation for each main numerical score, as each of the stars did, i.e. "inferior, or excellent." The specific words attached to each main star is a unique signature that easily identifies itself with the Easy Allies brand. There is something just special when a game can be referenced in your mind with a particular worded description. Case in point, whenever I think of the experience playing "Persona 5", "MASTERFUL" is the idea that always jumps out first. Over all if the 9 Allies are happy with this decision, then so am I... But please include the "word grading" too, even if that means coming up with 5 new words to along with the original 5. Thank you. love & respect.

Tegan Combatti

Sounds good to me. I always thought the star system was a little too limiting.

Novus Operandi

It's a welcome change. Never been a fan of the star system. I felt just as EZA guys that it was lacking and ultimately was a self imposed limitation more than anything else. 10 grades system with half points is to me the best possible option - not too exact, as the 100 points scale used by other outlets seems pointless at times (is a difference of 1 or 2 points really perceivable?), but broad enough to accommodate differences in the reviewers views on a game. I for one don't get the "get rid of the scores from reviews " argument. Scores are helpful. Sometimes I just want to know whether a game is worth my time and I don't wanna spend 20 minutes reading to find out the game is mediocre at best. Anyways, keep up the good work!

I respect the choice, i do find it heartbreaking, i felt the star system made you guys stand up and made it very clear that the review was more than just the score, now the score becomes more important than what you guys are saying about the game.

Randy Verschueren

I shall now proceed to multiply each new score by a half star. I wonder which game will get the first quarter star?

AsGenesis

I think everyone appreciates each other's opinions, but this is something they wanted to do and we should respect that. I'm really happy to see that they are morphing their platform the way they want.

Grazooka

I've always preferred the 20 point scale to 10 or 100. Just the right amount of nuance.

TurboChickenMan

A lot of people prefer a tldr as time is precious. Scores are good for this (as is a pros/cons list). Sometime I don't want granularity, sometimes I do. So why not both? It's especially helpful if you have *some* granularity in your tldr. A 20 point scale seems about right.

Andrew Chalmers

I think the 20 point scale is the best scale for video games. 100 point is too granular and you'll get meaningless differences. Whereas 10 point scale gives you clumping(e.g are both these games really 4 5? One seems a tier above). 20 point scale gives you a very nice distribution of games which I think most people agree on.

Andrew Chalmers

Really happy about it. Let's be honest, Zelda BOTW was a 9.5, not 9.0. This would never have happened with that new system.

MaxVSTheGames

Great move

Finally!

Brogan Trull

Works for me. Makes sense even if it's just for review aggregation sites.

Not a fan. I feel like this is a step in the wrong direction. Your review TEXT is where your granularity comes from, not the score. IMO, you shouldn't even give a numerical score. I understand why you're doing it, though and I don't fault you. I just think the reasoning is poor.

Tokyo Slim

seems fair to me gets reviews a bit more accurate score wise. people should be there to actually listen to the reviewer anyways scores are just scores

7.9

Shawn Doom

Seconded

Brandon Patton

I supported the old system and I will support the new. There are pros and cons and only care about doing what you guys think reflects your opinions best - more score diversity won't be a bad thing

VGJunky

More accuracy is never a bad thing. Good shit

Actively dislike this change. Reviews benefit from a generalized score because more emphasis gets placed on what the review talks about. The fact that aggregators skew differently is a problem with aggregators themselves. I’d rather not see EZA change something that I identify the brand with just to stand more in line with the rest of the review outlets.

Laser Ramon

I fully support this.

Sounds good to me! Thanks for your hard work, and looking forward to the rest of 2018!

Molly Bittner

Unrelated to the change itself, but I like the videos you guys produce for announcements like this (easy allies plays announcement is the other one I can recall). Very classy

I like it, good reason to change it

Honestly, worst change since Easy Allies's inception. I'd preferred you did away with scores altogether.

Why not keep at least the stars and let them go from 0 to 10 to at least keep one of the brand signatures?

Sebastian Erben

No, we're not changing the old scores. We wouldn't be able to change the videos anyways. -Bloodworth

Easy Allies

I'm really happy you are going to the 10 point rating system again. I wanted to get onboard with your 5 star rating system however your ratings for games kind of got a bit repetitive and predictable because there wasn't much you could do. Truthfully it was too simplistic and not enough variety could be achieved.

Bakryu

Will the first 100 be retroactively changed or left on the 10point system for posterity?

Steven Beaumont

I'm totally happy with this change. Thanks, and keep up the amazing work!

Joe Varnum

I understand the reasoning. It is good from a business perspective to change the scoring system. Though, like some, I feel a bit sad. How will this change affect the branding?

LeeLore

I feel like you're caving to the bullshit Metacritic 7-10 scoring system, personally. Vaguer is better in a scoring system, since they're all pretty much BS anyway.

Gray Thomas-Sowers

Personally I was more a fan of the 5 stars, but I get why the change is happening. In the end scores don't really matter either so I'm not bothered by it.

Well, I can’t say I’m happy with the decision, especially given the justification provided. It seems more attention is being given to the score than should be. To me the stars were, and should remain, a small ancillary addition to the primary focus of a well written and thoughtfully formed review. This change is literally asking people to scroll past the real true content to focus on the final number. That is a shame.

Brandon Patton

My preference would be a 5 point scale rather than a 20 point scale. But honestly the score is the least interesting/ important part of the review to me anyways so I won't be losing any sleep over it.

Craig O Connor

I like the change. Mostly from the aggregate connection as it's harder for newer viewers to get what a 3 really means instead of a 60%

Zugdar

I can dig it. And I completely understand why the change, and the fact you made that decision is great.

Review scores are so painfully stupid. Just remove them and rid yourself of that drama. Let the children argue about the difference between 9 and 9.5 in someone elses's youtube comments.

I can see why you wanna change this, but honestly, I don't feel like it will much of a difference at all.

Whiskeyjack

I think this is a good move. Keep up the good work guys!

My Latin Lover

Really jazzed about this change.

selfconfessedcynic

Great choice, guys!

Ben Metal

Thank you!

Awesome! Let’s go swimming in 7s!

Huber totally convinced me when he talked about the "outside world" and how they convert the stars to something unintended. However, you could also implement a secondary system of "badges" like Eurogamer does, I think, saying a game is "Recommended", "Essential", or just "Good" and "Bad" (I don't quite remember the names) - no need to replace the score system, just a little badge, think about it for the future maybe.

Scores are better, I mean after what huber said on a previous show about stars aggregating a basic score on opencritic anyway you might as well do it that way and score it the way you intended rather than how they translate it.

ZyloWolfBane

I listen to the podcasts and other shows enough that EZA reviews are redundant and pointless to me, so this isn’t really a concern. However, I would like to point out, somewhat sardonically, that all the reasons you listed for reverting to this format are reasons why you probably should just ditch 1-dimensional scores altogether.

Anontastic

I prefer the stars, but I really do not care enough about the scoring system to be bothered by this. I am much more interested in what you fine folk have to say than in some arbitrary abstract linear scoring system :)

erni

Ahhh, just use both. Consider stars as a scale of 5-10. ★★☆☆☆ 7.0 .... ★★★★☆ 9.0 Nobody cares about scores below 5. Or, if you want, you can give 3.5, but it would still be 0 stars. I think the stars are a part of the brand and this way everyone wins.

Lauri Laivo

Why does it matter if a game is a 9.5 vs a 9.0. Why does metacritic matter. Why does it matter if people doubled your score. Does this change mean people will understand your scoring system.

Ibrahim Sozer

I definitely form my opinion from the review itself rather than the score but a lot of games were getting 4 stars all the time. I can totally see how this will allow the reviewer to more accurately express an opinion. Plus if it helps EZA work better with aggregate sites then that’s a great bonus. 👍

DancingElk

People moaned because it wasn't 5 stars not because it was low

Ibrahim Sozer

I always thought it would be cool to use both. Why not? Mess with the system a bit. The numbered score could be the score that aggregates use and basically define what the reviewer thinks critically about the game. Performances issues, etc would factor into the number score. But the star score on the other hand, standing next to the numbered score, would be more special. It would represent the reviewer's experience with the game without the performance issues. For example, a reviewer might have had so much fun with a game they would want to give it a 5 star rating despite frame drops present throughout the game. But for the numbered score, the performance issues would be reflected there, as a whole package of how the game is and runs. Whereas a viewer/reader will see the stars as a reflection of the reviewers more personal experience with the game - basically a fun meter. Also on the EZA site and in the Youtube description other Allies who played the game could add their own stars and a line indicating how they liked the game. A weird idea I had that is much too late to give now heh but I'll put it out there nonetheless.

Cool, I like to listen to the review to form an option, score means nothing to me. Keep it up guys.

Sometimes it's not a sin to cave in! I think it's fair to say that the stars weren't necessarily communicating exactly what the Allies intended them to communicate. I think BOTW is a good example - nobody would have batted an eyelid if Damiani had given it 9.5. We can moan about people 'not getting it', but if a simple change will lead to more people 'getting it' that's a good thing.

Samuel Cardwell

Good move! I understand the intention for the 5 star scale but the 20 point scale is more easily understood by social media and review sites; it will communicate what EA wants to say better in my opinion.

totally agree, branding does need a refresh after this, hope they don't just remove the stars from everywhere else (emotes / pre-stream graphics) instead maybe a newer design for those things.

sam

a little worried about the EZA branding synergy though no stars are not in reviews they're outdated and don't meld where they're still found. New logos incoming?

sam

I know the numbers matter but I personally don't, I look at the text under and consider if this is a game you recommend strongly or not. Obviously the body of the review is most important to get an idea of the game though.

crazyjackal

clear and understandable choice, bring on the reviews

sam

Feels like you caved in but will get used to it.

I think if you are gonna give a score then the 20 point system is the best way to differentiate and not have such a wide range of games that are equal score. The content in the review itself heavily outweighs the score for me

I like the stars but I love the points.

I'm fine with either system, doesn't really bother me. A 4 1/2 star review was obviously a 9 out of 10, but I guess a 20 point range will allow for further nuance.

Richard G Flowers

I think Xplay had the right stance on this. I always liked that with 5 stars you were continuing in their tradition: "Morgan: Our system is better because it recognizes that scores are broad generalizations. Adam: For example, a popular web site gave Mobile Suit Gundam: Crossfire a score of 3.0 out of 10. They gave Torino 2006 a 3.9. What is the difference? Morgan: Both games suck, all the score is gonna be able to communicate to you is that the game is bad. If you want more nuance on the suckage, you have to actually go and read the review. See, in a 10-point scale, everything under 5 just means 'this game ain't worth buying', so there's no real difference. Adam: And there's no real nuance to a score difference of two- or three-tenths of a point. Our scores at least give sweeping generalizations for you to use as a guide."

Fair enough, I don't think it matters too much - I'm much more interested in the content of the EZA reviews rather than the final score.

Simon Wallace

I think it's been long overdue. Has never mattered to me, but I think it's the much better business decision and works with the aggregate sites nicely like you said.

I don't have any issue with that. I do think it can be tough to get the details into a star system. While I personally don't really believe in scores, I think making it easier for aggregate websites, which have unfortunately become such a critical part of game reviews, to get the proper score from the team is the right move. You guys do reviews right, because, a good review whether its written or narrated, makes the score at the end unsurprising. For example, when I watched the Dragonball Fighterz review you did, I knew what the score was going to be thanks to the great detail in the review itself. That alone is enough for me. Anyways, hope the change works out!

Disappointed to here about this change, for multiple reasons. First and foremost, for me scores are merely a way to give a general consumer service without the risk of spoilers. I want to know how much the reviewer liked a game without having to hear or see the game before I've played it; I think anything above a five point scale is a bit unnecessary to achieve this. Moreover, I think anything above a five point scale is less about the scale as a tool and more about the scale as a convention. For some reason, gamers (both the audience and the reviewer) have a fascination with what a "10" is or what a "7" is. A score isn't anything, it's a tool and unlike, say a math test, there is no way to clearly differentiate between small differences in scores. How different really is a "9" versus a "9.5"? I'd find it difficult to believe anyone can really say. Finally, I think this change will inhibit the wider use of the scale, although I could be proved wrong based on your future reviews. I'd expect to see fewer 4s given than 2 stars were and fewer 10s than 5 stars were, but again I could be proven wrong. Nevertheless, love and respect!

Can't stand half scores, just seems so lazy and a bit of a cop out.

Gotta say that I love the stars, but mostly because it's unique and the score doesn't matter much to me. So, changing the scoring system also doesn't matter much to me, and I understand the concern with differentiation and aggregation. I really just mourn the loss of that uniqueness in style. Will you keep the stars in the stream gif and find other ways to use stars graphically? I'd like to see the stars stick around, even if only as an homage to the beginnings of EZA.

Kevin Weaver

BRAVO !!!! Love that Shadow Drop !! Congrats on the big change, I was ok with stars but totally support the change it makes total sense !! PS: Love that edit !!! L&R

tahitianwarrior

No but I feel like that reflects the exact wrong commitment. The stars are attached to an entire review which can have all the detail you need to differentiate one excellent game from another! Trying to put that detail into the abstract number is so bizarre! Numbers don't do a good job differentiating great games. 3 stars is good. 4 stars is great. 5 stars is excellent. That is all numbers can effectively get across anyway. Differentiation beyond that needs to be done with words. Sticking to a five point system so much more classy.

If you ever give a game a 10 please have the sound Bloodworth makes in the review. You know the sound.

Olf Himself

I 100% support this. The 20 point scale is honestly the best way to score things. It's not as restrictive as the 10 point, star system, and it avoids the meaningless difference between giving a game an 8.2 or 8.3. And I think it's still just as viable to give a 10/10 on a 20 point scale like you would giving a game 5/5 stars.

Logan Tawse

Boo

I am going to go ahead and predict we won't be seeing a 10 any time soon, if ever. You all are used to these numbers, so even if the granularity is 5x less than a 100pt scale, the reviewers will have to actively fight the notion that a "7" is a mediocre game, as opposed to a "6" or "5". Old habits die hard.

Oscar Magana

Really disappointed to hear this, but I've been expecting it. So glad Ben, Huber and Brad took my question on the last frame trap to voice their thoughts on this. 😥 L&R

Daniel Slawson

I think this is giving in to all the wrong people and going in the wrong direction (the way to make your opinion robust is to avoid trying to pick number at all, not to lock it even tighter to a number) but I understand why you feel the need to do it especially with aggregators. Unfortunately you all are sort of trapped by the trends of the larger ecosystem. Just make DAMN sure the wipe at the end is still as classy as the star one was and all will be shiny.

Bradley Spies

Maybe you can keep the stars as a visual representation, because they look cool. A score of 10/10 could still have five stars showing behind it or something. Just an idea. Either way, I don't worry so much about the score as the content of the review, so whatever system you all want to use is fine with me.

Ian Alexander

I'll miss the stars as an important icon for EZA, but I agree using a 20 point scale seems better in the current games media world.

SuperAfroBoy

I liked the stars as well, but this is a good change.

Dale Son

Dug the stars. Will miss them. Fare thee well!

I personally do prefer the star system, as granular digits sometimes do not represent what it is actually meant to. I appreciate the honesty and transparency of this change though, and will receive it with an open mind as always! Good luck <3

Celso O'Donnell

Yessss. I’ll appreciate a 20 point system.

I liked the star system but your guys' reviews are so well written and crafted that even without a rating scale I can get a crystal clear picture of where you stand on a game. I can see how the stars could cause you guys some agony, though.

Damn I did like the star system but it makes sense, i appreciate the .5 system too, its kind of annoying when a score is at 9.7 or 8.2, i find that kind of pointless.

It makes sense, but I’ll always prefer the star system because it feels more solidified and absolute. The stars make a firm stance on the games in question and focus less on perfection and more on overall experience and enjoyment. That said, it’ll be nice to get back into the GT vibe of scoring.

Yay. I'm happy to hear that, stars was the one aspect I thought could change. Always supportive and happy either way. God of War went from a five star to a 9.5

Andreas Kleanthous

Always!

Chris Leroux

To anyone frustrated, here's the thinking. Damiani did a great job justifying it on stream: If a game is competent, then it already gets around a 3/5 stars, meaning you only have two stars to differentiate the good from the great. That's not a lot of wiggle room. It also means that when you round up or down a star, you're never really giving a score that fits your thoughts. If you think of it in 10% chunks per half-star, a 75% would be rounded to an 80%. That's not great. This new system is a bit more flexible and standardized.

Chris Leroux

Rip stars. Now it’s relegated to just twitch emote status. At least they didn’t go to a 100 point scale

Greg Kettering

This makes perfect sense when you look at aggregate sites like OpenCritic. I believe Kyle mentioned this on a recent EZA Podcast. A 3/5 star rating for example appears on OpenCritic as a 60/100 and is not an accurate representation of the full review.

Solertia

Makes sense to me

Maggie Frayer

And the Jimquisition

Tim Albers

Don't mind the change but it will be weird without the stars. Felt like they were a big part of the brand, what with twitch emotes and graphics and stuff.

Olf Himself

Very happy to see this practical change in a climate of many amazing games and limited consumer time/money. I hope the people opposed to this change keep in mind that this won't be detrimental to the quality of EZA's reviews, and if they don't care for scores or find a need for them whatsoever, they can simply ignore the number at the end of the review and carry on as usual.

MBUN

Very welcome change. BotW sitting at 4.5 stars never quite sat well with me, and I think that's definitely because of how little wiggle room you had with the star system.

Hudson Bilbrey

Soooo...Knack 2 is a 10?

Castno

I think kotaku has it best. Just text

Benjamin Shultz

I’d better see a bunch of .5s floating around in the background instead of those useless stars from now on. Thanks as always for the transparency, guys. We’re with you.

This is great and makes total sense to me.

Sonny Laguna

Yeah do this.

M

Absolutely fine with this, I always thought the stars system was too vague personally - now if we can just get Breath of the Wild and Yakuza 0 changed to 10/10 that would be greeeaaatttt.....

Adam Mullany

Why not give up rating altogether? Would like that much more

Tim Albers

Maybe they can rain a bunch of red stars on games that review well, I’d hate to not see them anymore.

Very good move.

Adamantum

Disappointed, but I completely understand. What matters is the reviews’ content anyway, something which I’m surely will remain consistently stellar. Cheers, guys.

RanchoCucamunga

It doesn’t really make a difference to me honestly, the content of the review itself is far more valuable, but I understand that in the age of metacritic and opencritic it can be frustrating to see your scores mangled into something else.

Conn

Love it. I know you guys didn't make this change without a lot of thought. Looking forward to your reviews more than ever before.

Kenji Fuse

I liked the stars...

I think this is a good idea. Good on you guys for not being stubborn and listening to everyone.

Excellent! Really happy with this change

Dale Payne

Screw this.

M