Randall Munroe over at the always kickass and occassionally deep webcomic xkcd posted some interesting stats over on his blog last month, where he asks his readers to quickly name a recent popular movie that had two female leads as the top billed stars of the movie.

Naturally, it’s a trick question, as the stats reveal that in the past 4 years (encompassing 80 movies going by the top 20 per year), there has been two movies that fit that billing. And since I rarely see films, I can’t think of what they’d be (they were in 2006, incidentally).

Furthermore, the data reveals that the overwhelming majority of films were M/M billed or M/F billed, and of the M/F billed films, the vast majority of those were female love interests to a male protagonist.

It’s kinda sad, really. And while Randall laments the kickass action films we’re not getting featuring River Tam and Beatrix Kiddo, I have to ask, where are the videogames that do this?

Surely an industry with top billed heroines as popular as Lara Croft and…uh…wait…no, she wasn’t top billed…the X-2 Final Fantasy Girls? Maybe whatserface from Heavenly Sword? No that wasn’t very blockbustery, uh, how about that one chick from Resident Evil. Yeah, her. Wait, SAMUS. Yay I got a second one! Surely our industry would be able to fill that void, but apparently, it can’t. Or won’t.

I’m left wondering, is this data a reflection of the industry, and a fear to put bold female characters as leads in top tier action games? Looking at the past few ginormous blockbuster releases, I’m not seeing even a token female playable character within the rogues gallery of protagonists.

• Gears of War: No.
• Halo3: Newp.
• CoD4: Nada.
• GTAIV: Bzzt.
• Assassin’s Creed: No, and
• Bioshock: also no.

We have to look to titles like Metroid (where you don’t even really see much of the female for most of the game and we don’t get to see much of her character develop) or a fighting game like Super Smash Bros. Brawl before we get to the female characters (and before anyone thinks they can trump this argument with “but there’s females in the multiplayer,” please, save your breath. Say it with me: Pro-ta-gon-ist). I suppose we could include Mass Effect, even though the main character is more of a player selection, but even if we decide it fits the bill I think it becomes obvious that the data is fairly similar to the film data.

So is this trend a reflection of the industry’s executive decisions, or is this data (the lack of strong female lead protagonists) a reflection of the buying habits of the consumers (which drives the executive decisions)? Are men the predominant buyers of action games? I suppose it’s safe to assume so, I’m sure I’ve read metrics which support this at some point in time, but do women who buy these kinds of action games feel left out? Are there enough of them to make a difference and sway the decision-making process? And most importantly, would switching the main character to a female one increase sales of the title, or would the predominantly male buying audience shy away from the title and thereby hurt sales?

I personally would love to see a game with Beatrix Kiddo and River Tam kicking 8 kinds of ass sideways, but I’m not the market these kinds of games are being sold to. The question is: Would a female lead action game be able to sell just as well as the successful male lead titles, or did Eidos get lucky with Tomb Raider?

Awhile back Clint Hocking wrote a pretty kickass piece critiquing Bioshock’s Ludonarrative Dissonance. For a long time I wasn’t sure what the hell he was getting at with the word “Ludonarrative,” and after I just recently did an interview for a gaming journalism student, I learned that he had combined the terms “Ludology” and “Narrative.” No, really, I R SMRT.

After reading up on Ludology, I was hoping to coin a new term for what a typical video-game is, and unfortunately for me, I think Clint wins it with Ludonarrative. Why come up with a new term? Well, because the idea of people arguing the importance of either Ludology or Narrative in a video-game being more important than the other is frustrating. The point is, videogames (in fact, nearly ever game) is a combination in some way of both. So what’s the point in arguing that one is more important than the other?

Certainly, both fields of study are important. I went on for a week about the Narrative I had seen in Portal, so I obviously feel a good narrative is impactful. But there’s also a phrase thrown around in game design which I’ve been known to use myself from time to time: Gameplay is King. (This would be the Ludology reference for you folks in the back row there). If I ever had a situation where I was allowed to break fiction for the sake of gameplay, I’d briefly side with the Ludics and make the choice to go with a greater gameplay mechanic if I could.

But it cheeses me that there are people out there who might find one more impactfull or important than the other. The point is, we need both.

The games with even the wildest and heaviest narration, Final Fantasy, certainly have their roots in gameplay. Watching a huge summon spell just isn’t nearly as amazing if you didn’t earn the right to pull it off in the first place, seeing a cinema of your character kicking ass just isn’t as impactful if you didn’t kick and scrape your way to that point, and it’s hard to argue against the idea that levelling up a character is fun.

But even if we look at games from a strictly Ludic perspective, we can find that they also contain Narratives, as well. Even in the king of boardgames, Chess, the pieces are not only named after medieval themed characters, but the pieces which are more powerful are named after more powerful figures (save the King). Would the game be nearly as interesting (or have survived history at all) if “Bishop takes Knight” was “Gamepiece G takes Gamepiece L”? The fact of the matter is that even Chess has a fiction. Players pretend (even passively) to be two armies with politically divergent interests battling it out to see who wins in a contest of might makes right.

The ludology argument with chess would be: Chess would be just as much fun if the pieces weren’t medieval characters, and I have to call them out on that. First off, if the game were nothing more than shapes, or letters, or numbers, nobody would play it, because the game is hella boring enough as it is. Yes, it’s intellectually immersive, if that’s your bag, but without the idea that your Queen is about to mow down a Rook, well, I have to say the game isn’t nearly as compelling. Players, whether they know it or not, are identifying with their King pieces. If you lose your King, you’ve lost yourself. The emotional weight of losing just isn’t there if your square gets cornered, or if your Z is put into check.

This is why I get frustrated when I hear mainstream media claiming that video-games are an “interactive movie” or when I see game designers shuffling off the importance of narrative. The point is, any good game has both. Especially any good video-game worth playing. Ludonarrative is what makes games unique. They have both a gameplay element and a story element, to one degree or another. To ignore one is to ignore the total potential of your game.

And too many game developers fall into the trap of favoring one over the other. While I don’t think I’ve done an exceptionally good job at convincing anyone, it’s my hope that studios will begin development practices which tie both into the dev process from day one. Bioshock did it, Assassin’s Creed did a halfway decent job of it, and it seems GTA IV did it. Unfortunately I don’t think there’s many more studios out there capable of hitting on this process.

Forbes jumps on the “Nintendo is in Trouble!” bandwagon a bit in a recent article lamenting the lack of some GTA IV on the Wii platform. Somehow, they make a mental leap which figures that GTA IV is going to put a dent in or decrease the flow of titles and systems flying off of the shelves with the Wii brand name on them.

While I can see how they reasoned this, their logic isn’t quite holding up under scrutiny.

The misconception starts by figuring that GTA IV (which sold an impressive 6 million titles across the 360 and the PS3 in its first week alone) is going to somehow “lure” gamers away from the Wii. As if gamers were the Wii’s target demographic in the first place. Which it decidedly isn’t.

The point is, and excuse my gross generalization, the Wii is marketed to Soccer Moms and Retirement Home Bowling League Addicts. It’s not a gamer’s platform. Caveat: okay gamers do play it. But it’s not for gamers. It’s for the consumer public at large. Nintendo has pretty much admitted as such. They wanted to bring gaming to the masses, not gaming to gamers. That niche is filled already.

That’s what GTA is for.

Granted, GTA is pretty mainstream. The mass consumer public that plays it who call themselves “gamers” when they’re not fist-pounding their frat buddies and doing keg stands are buying it, certainly. But the “Nintendo” demographic aren’t. Nintendo knew this when they designed their system to be built off of last-gen hardware with next-gen controls. They know that mostly only Nintendo games sell well on Nintendo hardware, and Nintendo games don’t need dual core processors with liquid cooled GPUs to be fun. So why spend the money on them when they’d be essentially pointless? They made a calculated decision to miss that boat because, let’s be honest: Would you buy a GTA game for Nintendo hardware even if the hardware were capable of running it?

So, back to the idea that GTA IV is going to lure gamers away from the Wii. We can pretty much assume that gamers who are gamers aren’t the people who only own a Wii. They already own a next-gen system and a Wii, most probably.

Any gamers who were holding out for a next-gen system already ran out and bought one either for the Halo3 launch, or when Playstation won the Blu-Ray war. It will be interesting to see if either party actually moved a significantly larger number of units due to GTA IV once the TRST reports for April come out, but I’m thinking it’s dubious at best.

Finally, if we can all agree that Wii owners (remember, the ones who only own a Wii) are mostly folks looking for some affordable, wholesome, cheap entertainment, we have to question if they will be swayed by what is ostensibly an NC-17 rated video-game. While it’s a huge generalization on my part, Retirees and Soccer Moms aren’t exactly in the market for a game that involves you stealing cars, capping asses, and banging hookers.

I just don’t see them looking at GTA IV and wishing they had the hardware to play it. Do you?

4 years, 100 million dollars, and a bunch of questionable “10″ ratings later, Rockstar has etched its newest offering onto a platter for the consumer populace to enjoy. For the consumer, it’s mostly win-win. For your $64, there is a lot of content there for your money. In fact, I’d even go so far to say you’re getting the equivalent of two or three games for your dough.

But what I’m a bit concerned about as a developer is if GTA is good or bad for the industry as a whole. No, I’m not talking about the marketing scandal. That’s just stupid political posturing. What I’m talking about is what Rockstar delivered when it made GTA IV. $100 million dollars is not only a lot of money (more than any other game budget to date), it’s an amount of money that’s nearly impossible for any other studio to compete with save Ubisoft or EA. This sets a bit of a dangerous precedent for the games industry at large: games that cost more than $15 million dollars typically need to sell more than one million units to get to a profitable margin, and that’s not the easiest thing to do, even for an outstanding game.

So what exactly does GTA IV bring to the table? I guarantee you studios all over the planet are playing it for competitive analysis, so let’s take a quick look at the pros and cons of what a nuclear bomb like GTA does to the industry’s standards, due to the consumer expectations it sets.

The Pros:

• Expansive, Huge Sandbox World. Smallish sandboxes are no longer acceptable. GTA IV seems to be about twice as large as Vice City was, even. This world’s size is just epic. Adding to this is the seemingly endless activities you can do, from checking email to watching TV to bowling to going drinking. I have no doubt this is where the “10″ scores are coming from, because it certainly isn’t from the details of the gameplay.
• Mind-Blowing Media Content. The radio, the TV, the internet. Does the stream of content ever end? Even the signs on the taxi-cabs or the naming convention for the stores is amazing. Will anyone ever be able to consume it all?
• Authentic Voice Acting. Screw the huge stars. If you can find excellent voice talent like GTA IV has in it, go for it. The conversations sound natural, the accents authentic. If the swearing doesn’t grate on my nerves, you know you’re doing something right.
• Amazing character/plot writing. There’s little character touches hidden all throughout the main storyline. You’ll be presented with small facts about characters early on that will feel like a frying pan to your face later when you figure out what they mean. Incredible depth. Believeable characters.
• A Likeable Main Character We Can All Identify With. What they’re doing here in IV is pretty interesting. While I can’t identify with an illegal immigrant from Russia, I can find purchase in his fish-out-of-water status in Liberty City. I wonder about the same things he does: where do I go to have a good time? What can I do here to make money? We have the same objectives, and skill sets, for once.
• Incredibly Natural Visual Interface. The taxi-cab, the internet cafe, and especially your phone. They’ve taken natural everyday things and hidden menus in them so that they don’t pull you from your immersion in the game world.

The Cons:

• Pretty Horrible Controls. I don’t know where they fell off the horse here, but GTAIV’s controls feel like a step backwards. I wasn’t a San Andreas player, but I played the bajeebus out of III and Vice City, while dabbling some in San An. I never really feel much in control in IV, either of Niko on foot or behind the wheel. Everything is sluggish, and slow to respond. It doesn’t matter if it’s fisticuffs, gun combat, or driving. It’s kinda all just “meh.”
• Boats on Wheels. Why does every car bounce? Why does every car skid out going around a corner at 20 mph? How many driving games are out there that handle driving infinitely better, and yet we’re subjected to grossly sub-par driving from a game that is named after driving a stolen car and for the most part has defined what driving in a 3D city should feel like?
• Seriously, What’s With the Euphoria?

From the ridiculous lean-walk to the Corman leg-up technique of mounting everything taller than 6 inches when you stop walking, this Euphoria shit is getting old, fast. I get that for Euphoria to work it has to be on 24/7 in your game world, but I’m wondering just how much it was worth it. Yeah, getting hit by a car and hanging onto the hood as you slide off it looks awesome, but if it means I keep putting my foot up on a park bench just because I’m standing near it, uh, I could probably live with just plain ol’ rag doll. And I can’t help but think that stupid crazy lean-walk turn thing he does is only confounding my previous control issue, and the following issue as well.

• Holy Crappy Cameras, Batman. I hope you don’t need to back that thang up, because god help you if you want to see behind you. I get that reversing cameras in a car is a difficult thing to manage. If a player just wants to back up a few feet, whipping the camera around 180 constantly can be nauseating. But the issue with this mentality is that it assumes players want to do some fine tune detail driving, like attempting to parallel park a car, when this simply doesn’t happen, ever, in GTA. Players are more likely slamming it in reverse because the way forward is blocked by gang banging thugs, an 8 car flaming pileup, or a barricade of police cars. If the reverse lights come on and the car begins moving in reverse, PLEASE SHOW ME WHAT THE HELL IS BEHIND MY CAR, NOW. If I get nauseous from slamshifting between D and R for ten minutes, that’s my fault. If I can’t see what’s behind my car because you won’t put it on camera, that’s the developer’s fault.
• Confusing Controller Interface. If X is “yes” and O is “no” when I’m in a car on the phone, then X should always mean “yes” and O should always mean “no.” The fact that I’m on foot or driving a boat should not matter. I don’t want to be on foot and tapping X repeatedly when I’m asked if I want a lap-dance, and then wonder why the hell the game isn’t accepting my input, only to find it wants L1 or some other button because I’m not in a car or not on the phone. This only serves to confuse the player.
• The $100 Million Price Tag. How are other studios going to hope to compete with this? Did Rockstar waste a lot of money in development? Could it have been delivered for less money with a more efficient workflow pipeline? Will all other games have to spend a comparable amount of money to hope for a similar review score? Will the consumer public or reviewer cabals expect this amount of content (which is honestly underpriced at $64) from every title from here on out?

What worries me more than anything about this list is that the “pros” are less likely to be adopted by outside studios anytime soon. It’s actually really tough to sell a powerful character driven narrative, and not many studios know how to set one up properly, especially in a video-game.

Instead, I fear that the “cons” are what are going to be adopted into common practice development. Sure, studios will attempt to hit the massive sized world, but they’ll look at the sloppy driving and the horribly clumsy fighting engine and think “hey, we don’t need to do it any better: GTAIV sold 6 million copies with that crap, and got 10s for their effort” and leave it at that. These are areas that need the most innovation and love, and they seemed to have been ignored (or rushed) the most.

The bottom line here is: Do you think GTA IV is going to push the industry to newer heights? Or are we going to see a bunch of copy-cat attempts to cash in on the massive sandbox world crime game? Will everyone need to deliver GTA IV size content to get the consumer’s money?

If so, this is a bit of a dangerous precedent that Rockstar has foisted upon the industry. I’m curious to see how it pans out.

So rumors are being thrown about that there’s going to be some sort of prequel to Halo, now that Bungie’s split from Microsoft.

It doesn’t seem entirely out of the realm of possibility, if you consider that Halo is probably the prequel to Marathon (Bungie’s previous sci-fi trilogy). This old article did a decent enough job of pointing out just how close the Halo and Marathon universes actually are to each other, and while its author felt it was some sort of sequel, it seems obvious that Halo is more probably the prequel to the Marathon trilogy. Despite all of the other similarities, the end of Halo3 pretty much sets up this “super soldier” who is awakened from a cryostasis every time the ship’s AI needs a hero to step up and battle alien evil, which is exactly how Marathon starts (if I’m not mistaken).

So while Xbox360Fanboy seems to think that this alleged prequel Bungie’s supposedly working on won’t have a Master Chief in it, I have to disagree. I think we’re going to see them describe how a man named John 117 works his way through the ranks, and becomes the faceless hero millions of people have projected their own personas upon.

At least, I sure as hell hope they do.

I just tried the Army of 2 demo tonight, and I have to say that I think that while making a game all about co-op play was an incredibly great idea, making a demo that must be played with another human being was a colossal mistake.

I just wanted to get a taste of the gameplay, and there are obviously other bots in the game which are driven by AI, so would it have killed them to allow me to play the game alone?

Because as I suspected, the other guy dropped out halfway through the demo (or I guess halfway through the demo, I wouldn’t know, I never finished it), forcing me to start it over again. Which just isn’t going to happen.

Regardless of how the actual game plays (are you forced to play co-op the entire game? Or can you play with a bot as your partner?), making a demo that is contingent on another human’s participation isn’t exactly a recipe for sales. Now my experience based off of the demo is to assume that the game must be played via co-op or it can’t be played at all, because that’s exactly how the demo plays.

So the New York Times released a piece today with “alarming news” that the Wii is “underperforming” in the software sales business compared to Sony and Microsoft, respectively. They trot out the statistic that the Wii only sells 3.7 games per owner per year to the PS3’s and 360’s 4.7 and 4.6 titles, respectively. Let’s blockquote those so they’re easier to see at a glance:

Wii: 3.7/home/year
360: 4.7/home/year
PS3: 4.6/home/year

While I’m sure the fanboy crowds out there will no doubt trumpet the “pwned!” card for this, where the NYT misses the mark here by a wide margin is by not talking about the installed base of each system. While they do mention that the Wii enjoys a “big” audience, they just don’t say how big. I’m being lazy and I don’t feel like digging up YTD numbers on the hardware units for 2007 (actually I looked just now and I couldn’t find them after a few minutes), so let’s just look at the most recent report from March:

Wii hardware units sold: 721,000
360 hardware units sold: 262,000
PS3 hardware units sold: 257,000

As it turns out, the Wii enjoyed a roughly 2.5-1 hardware sales ratio to MSoft and a 3-1 ratio to Sony. Not only is Nintendo making money on every single hardware unit sold, this changes the software numbers drastically. If we extrapolate out the 3.7 software units per Wii hardware unit from the story, assuming it is true, these are the predicted sofware sales (for the year) just from the hardware units sold in March:

Wii March software to hardware ratio projected: 2,667,700
360 March software to hardware ratio projected: 1,231,400
PS3 March software to hardware ratio projected: 1,182,200

The clear winner in total predicted software sales here, by more than a 2-to-1 (or a 200%) margin, is the Wii. Compared to the previous margin implied if you only look at software units per console, which at best is a 79% margin difference in favor of Microsoft.

This is a pretty unfair and irresponsible characterization of the state of Nintendo and the state of the industry in general by the NYT. In truth, they are outselling the competition, as we can see from the actual software sales during March. Granted, March contains Super Smash Bros Brawl numbers, but according to the NYT, those were horrible, right? So it should just be an “average” month here for Nintendo. Collating the numbers at the Joystiq article for top 10 software sales, we have actual software sales of:

Wii actual March software sales: 3,374,000
360 actual March software sales: 1,832,000
PS3 actual March software sales: 225,000

While the PS3 had an abysmal month, the Wii still held up to almost a 2-to-1 (200%) ratio of software sales vs. their competitor. The math of total software sales holds up under at least a monthly scrutiny, even if it doesn’t hold up for PS3 (4.6 software/unit? I hope they had an awesome X-mas). I’d be even more interested to see if the ratio/math holds up for the YTD numbers (which is where they would have had to have calculated the original X pieces of software/hardware ratio from), as it seems every month save one the Wii is owning the PS3 and 360 in hardware sales. Where the software ratio might break down is the Lifespan to Date numbers for each system, as I think the 360 is still ahead in total installed base numbers of all the current-gen systems.

The bottom line here is that this is a hilariously bad piece of games reporting from the NYT, and quite a spin on the numbers game. They actually state that retailers are having trouble selling or moving Wii software, when the numbers reflect the exact opposite. Nintendo is selling twice the number of software units than the next closest competitor, at least in March. This is plainly obvious from the data.

But what’s truly upsetting is how many major news outlets ate this up without actually stopping to read their own stories or pieces on the actual sales numbers that hit every month. Software ratios mean less when the hardware sales are dominating the bajeesus out of the competition. In fact, without incorporating the totals for both hardware and software sales, I would forward that sofware to hardware ratios mean little to nothing at all. Maybe they were important last gen?

New-ish Flash game DOEO seriously reminds me of the same crazy aesthetic that drove Katamari Damacy, being that trippy new-aged fun almost drug-trip of a look.

It’s not horribly innovative game-play-wise, but what I find striking is how all of the little elements combine to actually want to make me want to keep playing. The art style, the audio calls, the cute little pink faces, the music. The total is seriously larger than the sum of its inane parts.

Aside: if you don’t get the title of this post after playing, go check out this video. Apologies to Morris Day and the Time.

A friend of mine interviewed awhile back for a position as a major recent 3rd Person Shooter’s Lead Animator position, and he recently told me about how surprised he was that their pipeline for putting animations into the game consisted entirely of keyframed animations. While this might seem odd to you, as a game designer/developer, I find the decision quite off-putting, as the game consisted entirely of humans shooting at each other in a realistic environment. What this game’s animation pipeline called for wasn’t nine keyframe animators working full time around the clock for two years.

What it needed was motion capture.

I wasn’t all that surprised to hear that their animators were resistant to it, to be honest. A lot of animators are pretty scared of their craft being automated, and I can certainly understand and identify with that. But too often people are afraid of new tools that can wind up reaping better results for an entire game team or game company, in less time. I’m a family man now, and I like to spend time with them, you know, away from work, so I’m all for software that makes my life at work easier so I can spend some time living life at home. I’ve seen mocap save a project when used properly, and I’ve seen quite a few animator purist conversions to mocap since I’ve been working in the games industry for the past seven years.

But unfortunately Motion Capture is too often looked upon by animators as some sort of wicked evil crutch. Maybe they think it’ll “take their craft away,” or that it “won’t be as good” as keyframing. I’ve heard just about every excuse, but the bottom line is that the game in question (assuming they’re even looking at mocap means it has humans in it) could probably have been animated with half the animators in half the time. The studio could have made a one time investment in a motion capture system (okay, an investment every three to five years or so if they get some good stuff), and rolled the other 4-5 animators onto a second project. Instead they had nine animators (NINE) work redonkulous hours slaving away on their craft which would have looked better if they’d just mocap’d it in the first place.

More to the point, if you’re animating humans, you might want to consider using motion capture from humans. I guarantee you if genuine human movement is what you seek, you will get better results from genuine human movement than stylized human movement. If the animators are worth their salt (and not all out of shape), they can even get in the motion suit and perform the moves. I’ve done it, and it’s a lot like animating in real time. I’ve seen traditional keyframe animators get up from their desks and act out scenes to better understand how to animate them, so it only follows that they might want to try capturing that performance in a bodysuit, no?

Now, don’t get me wrong, there are certainly edge cases which just can’t be mocap’d. I’m downloading the Iron Man demo right now and I’m guessing that it’s going to be 100% keyframed. I can’t say I blame them; getting power armor is hard enough to come by these days, and then trying to get a large enough capture volume to handle it is even harder. Also, the little shiny markers don’t stick to anything that’s not made of velcro so well, and I don’t think Stark Industries makes a velcro finish version. But for crying out loud, running around on foot with a gun out is prime mocap material.

I will no doubt get flamed from animators for this saying “but you don’t know what you’re talking about!” or some other nonsense, so try and look at it this way guys: Would you motion capture someone for a Mario game? No? Then why are you keyframing paramilitary humans in a photo realistic war-torn 3rdPS?

Not to single out any of the characters in TF2 (they’re all fantastic personalities), but I’ve been playing a lot of Pyro lately, mainly because once you learn how to play it it can be a pretty brainless class if you want it to be. I haven’t had a ton of time to play TF2 lately, and when I do, I’m pretty tired, so my typical offensive Sniper class is right out. Pryo is my standby, if no other reason than I like hearing his laugh. And “hudda hudda hudda” is also just too much fun to spam.

So while trying to figure out what I was going to write about tonight, a co-worker suggested that I discuss the “Pryo is a girl!” rumors that folks like to throw around (I should say “threw” around, because I’m months late on this topic), mainly because he has what appears to be a purse in his locker.

That would pretty much be where the rumor ends, because not only is he voiced by a guy (which I’ll let slide as Bart Simpson is voiced by a girl), he moves like a guy, he sounds like a guy, and he’s built like a really lanky torso/short stubby legged guy.

But, far be it from me to keep from taking anything to the extremes, I decided to do a bit of a draw-over of the Pyro, just to see where the proportions would line up, if he were a she:

Verdict? PLEASE GOD DON’T LET THE PYRO BE FEMALE. Because that? Is a mutant.*

*I originally made the hips wider, but it looked worse. Also: Pyro’s head is tiiiiiiiiny. Also and: I forgot to put the “BLU” logo on her sports bra.