Timesplitters: Future Perfect Review

|Tap-Repeatedly|FFC Archives

           

Timesplitters: Future Perfect

Review by DavoAugust 2005

Making the Quantum Leap into Gaming Fun

If you’ve seen the first Spiderman movie with Toby Maguire, you might recall the scene where he first realizes he has spider powers after webs begin shooting out of his wrists and he develops super speed and strength. Maguire, as Peter Parker, Spiderman’s alter ego, slowly begins scaling a vertical wall. Clinging to the wall about 20 feet off the ground, he looks down, breaks into a wild grin and exuberantly screams “woohoo” as he scales the rest of the building and begins leaping over rooftops. He’s clearly having a grand time. Timesplitters: Future Perfect is like that moment when Parker realizes he has spider powers. This game is grand fun in a big way.

Now, admittedly, fun is a vague term. What makes a game fun? I can’t provide a universal definition. In this case, it’s solid gameplay combined with an interesting story, unusual environments, surprising variety and generous helpings of humor. At a time when most FPS games are striving for dark, moody and atmospheric, Timesplitters: Future Perfect focuses on laugh-out-loud fun in both single and multiplayer modes. If you require dystopian environs, hell on Mars or futuristic ring worlds in your FPS games, then you should look elsewhere. You won’t find anything like that in Timesplitters: Future Perfect. If, however, you’re intrigued by the idea of a game that flings you through time into environments that range from an eerie underwater city straight out of a Jules Verne novel to a zombie-filled mansion reminiscent of Resident Evil, then read on. Much fun lies ahead.

Back to the Future

You play Timesplitters: Future Perfect as Cortez, a deliberately bald, muscular, slightly oblivious, can-do hero. The story focuses on Cortez’s efforts to thwart an evil alien-like race called the Timesplitters that is determined to destroy humanity. Events in the game span a 500-year stretch of time. As Cortez, you zip back and forth through time trying to decipher the Timesplitters’ next move and preserve the future of humanity.

Timesplitters: Future Perfect is the third game in the series, and the first to provide a decent storyline. The first Timesplitters game had virtually no story. The game plunked you into the middle of one of many playable time periods and grabbed your attention with gorgeous graphics, diverse level design and tight gameplay.  Noting the trend toward story in FPS games, the developer wrapped a thin storyline around Timesplitters 2. While the game was excellent, the story was little more than an idea that connected the time periods together.

With Timesplitters: Future Perfect, the developers have finally gotten the story right. Originality is not this tale’s strength.  Rather, it grabs hold of you with a time travel story that conceals a few intriguing mysteries and provides much humor. If you’ve followed the series, the story is a bit of a treat because you’ll learn the surprising origins of the Timesplitters. Following the series from the beginning is not, however, a prerequisite to enjoying this game’s story. Even if you don’t enjoy the mysteries or you find the unoriginality grating, you’ll likely enjoy the humor.

Most levels allow you to play the story as future and past versions of yourself. You’re future self will run into your past self and dole out vague hints about what’s going on. Halfway through the level you’ll play as your future self, complete with the opportunity to gloat at your past self’s incomprehension of what’s about to happen.

Much of the story is conveyed through outstanding cutscenes. The Timesplitters games have a very distinctive cartoon-like graphical style. All of the characters have a rubbery appearance, with slightly exaggerated facial features and body movements. The developers have mastered the ability to animate the characters in the cutscenes. The characters display a range of emotions that you rarely see done well outside of Square/Enix games or lavish Hollywood CGI movies like Toy Story or The Incredibles. No effort is made at photorealism, and thank goodness. The animation is done so well that you’ll rarely wish anything looked more realistic.

The cutscene animators have done an outstanding job capturing subtle human emotions through facial expressions. My favorite moment occurred during a scene in which Cortez, accompanied by a pretty, young female punk rocker, looks down a deep pit behind a zombie-filled mansion and hears the growl of something big. The punk rock girl looks at Cortez, and, with an expression that is partly sly, partly scared and partly daring, says to him, “You go first.” It’s over in about two seconds, but the emotional impact of the moment is conveyed entirely through the expression on the punk rock girl’s face, the expertly animated lip-syncing and the tense tone of her voice.

Weak voice acting has become less of a problem over the past couple of years as developers have turned to professionals to bring life to their characters. Following this trend, Timesplitters: Future Perfect has outstanding voice acting throughout the game. Every voice is unique and appropriate for the character speaking.

Where the game really distinguishes itself in terms of story is in its approach to humor. Like a Naked Gun movie, the game throws one gag after another at you. Some of the humor is verbal, as when Cortez tries to use a catch phrase throughout the game with mixed results. Much of the humor, however, is visual and easy to miss if you’re not alert.

The game has an excellent co-op mode that lets two players play at the same time on a split screen. Be warned, however, that playing in co-op mode detracts a bit from the humor. Although the cinemas remain unchanged, the secondary characters, which the computer controls in single-player mode, do some hilarious things during gameplay in the one-player game. There’s the malfunctioning robot, for example, that charges ahead of you in single-player mode, crowing in its mechanical voice about the superiority of machines and the certain death awaiting flesh-bag humans at its hands. In co-op mode, player two will control the robot without the benefit of its humorous comments.

Seven Days

Timesplitters: Future Perfect’s single-player mode takes about 10 hours to complete and represents only about 7% of the game (at least, that’s what the game indicated when I finished the single-player mode). I completed the single-player game in 90-minute sessions over seven days.

The game’s controls don’t take seven days to master. You can pick them up easily in a few minutes. The controls are as good as can be expected from an FPS on a console. As usual, if you’ve played Halo, you’ll master the controls instantly. I played the Xbox version of the game, which generally provides better FPS controls than other consoles, although the Gamecube does okay with shooters. Still, you should keep this in mind if you’re planning to play on the PS2.

Gameplay is fast-paced and exciting. You’ll race through each level looking over your weapon in typical FPS style and killing everything that moves. The game has a nice variety of weapons, and the firearms are appropriate to whatever time period you’re visiting. If you’re in 1924, you’ll use revolvers and single-action bolt rifles. In 2400, you’ll use ray guns and plasma weapons.

The music and sound effects are fitting and well done, although nothing really stands out as exceptional. The music created the right mood at the right time, but I can’t say I remember any of it from the single-player game. There is one challenge level (more on these later), however, involving monkeys dancing in a discotheque that just wouldn’t work without the music chosen by the developer.  The end-game cinema also features a real treat, both musically and visually. Sound effects are excellent throughout.

The in-game graphics don’t fare quite as well as the previously mentioned cutscenes. The Timesplitters graphics engine is aging gracefully, but it’s getting a bit long in the tooth, especially in terms of character detail. The environments were well animated and expertly drawn, but Cortez’s hands, for example, looked chunky and flat, like four Twinkies mashed together. In addition, characters’ lips don’t move when they’re speaking during gameplay. The aging in-game engine never bothered me, but graphics aren’t my first priority.  If top-of-the-line graphics are truly important to you, take notice.

The 4400 Things to Do with 12 Monkeys

After you’ve completed the single-player game, extensive multiplayer maps, challenge modes, unlockable characters, a mapmaker toolset and online capabilities round out the package.

The Xbox multiplayer maps are variants of the single-player levels.  You can play them on- or offline. Online, you play over Xbox Live against other players. Finding an online game was easy and painless.  Create a character, pick a game mode and map and off you go. I hit a few snags when I tried to find online games for modes that no one was playing at the time. I’m not sure whether this is an occasional problem or something endemic to certain types of multiplayer modes.  I found plenty of people playing the virus mode, for example, which has you trying to avoid an infectious disease. If you become infected, your role is reversed and you have to spread the infection. I could not, however, find anyone playing vampire mode, which has you draining other players’ energy to stay alive. You get to continue playing only so long as you kill other players to absorb their energy and keep your life bar from depleting.

The multiplayer modes are insidious little exercises in clever game design. Virus and Vampire mode were a lot of fun. My favorite has to be “Monkey Assistant” mode, which grants five killer monkeys to the player in last place. If you slip into last place, you suddenly have five murderous monkeys assisting you.

Once you pick a mode, you choose from about a dozen maps. One of the most clever maps takes place on an airborne dirigible. You can fight inside the blimp or on top of it. At all times, you have to be careful not to fall off the top of the blimp or through numerous holes in its floor that appear as the airship takes damage from the combat.

If you don’t have an Xbox or an Xbox Live account, or you plan on playing the Playstation 2 or Gamecube versions, not to worry.  All of the multiplayer maps are available offline for single-player action against bots or split-screen play against other players.

More than 150 unlockable characters are available for multiplayer use. Multiplayer characters range from the pedestrian to the novel to the bizarre. Pedestrian choices include the main characters from the single-player game, scantily clad women (and men) and generic soldiers. Novel choices include mummies, dinosaurs, zombie monkeys and enemies from the game. Bizarre choices are incredibly weird.  You can play as “The Shoals,” a tophat-wearing whale surrounded by an uncontained bowl of goldfish circling a central axis. Other characters include a giant white glove with a face on the back of its palm, Mr. Giggles, a freaky clown who laughs uncontrollably, and the Deerhaunter, a skinless zombie deer that walks upright and runs as fast the skinned undead Doberman pinschers in Resident Evil. The character selection screen extends the weirdness by presenting some characters in action-figure packaging, on pedestals or as flattened cardboard cutouts.

A whole series of strange and wonderful challenge modes are also available. If you’re pressed for time, the challenge modes offer you several dozen unlockable experiences that you can complete in a couple of minutes. Try the “Behead the Undead” monkey zombie challenge levels. You’re in a locked room with only a shotgun as zombie monkeys spawn in and lumber after you. Survive as long as you can. The “Avec la Brique” level requires you to break every glass item in a Japanese pagoda in three minutes and thirty seconds using only bricks. Finally, there is the pinnacle of Timesplitters: Future Perfect’s challenge modes: “Electro Chimp Discomatic.” Four monkeys kept alive with batteries are dancing in a discotheque. Your job? Keep their batteries charged with an electro-tool. If their power level reaches zero, they die.  Every 45 seconds or so, four more monkeys hit the dance floor, which, by the way, occupies two floors. Now you have to race around like a lunatic keeping your monkeys charged up. By the time you hit 12 monkeys, it’s an exercise in futility just finding them on the huge dual-level dance floor.

Then there’s the mapmaker mode. Making a map is easy. Pick from a selection of tiles taken from the game’s levels, snap them together, add in some enemies, weapons and items and start playing. The game also provides you with half a dozen multiplayer maps made by the developers using the toolkit to give you an idea of what is possible.  I built a very basic but workable multiplayer map in 10 minutes.

If you have an Xbox Live connection, you can also upload your maps for other people to enjoy and download maps that other players have made. I downloaded two maps. There was an extremely difficult map that was supposed to be modeled after Halo. It didn’t look anything like Halo and was way too hard for me. On the other hand, a map modeled after Doom was very impressive. Although it didn’t look like Doom, it had the feel of the game, complete with colored key pickups and a rudimentary single-player story line (conveyed through text).

“Get Your Filthy Hands off Me, You Damn Dirty Ape”

Timesplitters: Future Perfect has a lot of monkeys. It’s safe to say this game has more monkeys than any game other than Ape Escape. These aren’t just any monkeys, either. There are zombie monkeys, robot monkeys, mutant monkeys, lab monkeys, disco monkeys, ninja monkeys and plain old throw-feces-at-you monkeys.  If you love monkeys, this game is for you.

Lost Somewhere in Time

Aside from the aging graphics engine, Timesplitters: Future Perfect contains a few additional imperfections. The game uses a checkpoint save system in single-player mode. The checkpoints are numerous and well placed; I never had to replay more than a couple minutes of a level after dying and returning to my last checkpoint.  I only mention it because the ability to save anywhere is a make-or-break feature for some FPS players. Also, the controls, while as good as can be expected on the Xbox controller, aren’t as good as a mouse and keyboard. And with no PC version planned, it seems my computer-loving comrades won’t get a chance to experience the game. That’s a shame, because it would be interesting to see what kind of content PC modders could add to the mapmaker tools. Finally, my analog control stick stopped working on three occasions. I don’t know whether that was a problem with my controller or the game code, but I was able to go back to my last checkpoint each time and continue playing.

The Future Is Perfect

Well, not really. Timesplitters: Future Perfect doesn’t quite reach perfection with its aging graphics engine, imperfect console FPS controls, lack of a save-anywhere feature and small number of glitches. Its negatives, however, are vastly overshadowed by its positives and certainly not significant enough to keep it from getting a stellar rating. I never noticed the imperfections for more than a passing second or two, and that’s mostly because I was looking closely while wearing my reviewer hat.

I’ve put in nearly 25 hours of game time with Timesplitters: Future Perfect and have completed only about 12 percent of the game, according to the statistics screen. Boredom has yet to set in, and I still get a kick out of watching the unlocked cinema scenes to experience the story again. Timesplitters: Future Perfect is one of my favorite console FPS games of 2005, and I can’t recommend it highly enough. Now I have to go back and unlock some more challenge levels. As Cortez says, “It’s time to split!” The End

The Verdict

The Lowdown

Developer: Free Radical Design Publisher: EA Release Date: March 2005

Available for: Game CubeXbox  PlayStation 2

Four Fat Chicks Links

Player Feedback

Screenshots

Click to enlarge Click to enlargeClick to enlarge Click to enlargeClick to enlarge Click to enlarge

Where to Find It

Links provided for informational purposes only.  FFC makes no warranty with regard to any transaction entered into by any party(ies).

      Copyright © Electric Eye Productions.  All rights reserved.  No reproduction in whole or in part without express written permission.

Pages

Top

Category Archives

Top

Blog Posts

Top

16 Responses to Screw the Internet

  • Matt "Steerpike" Sakey

    God damn, Scout, I’d never heard of this Lanier fellow, but that’s pretty profound.

    Information is not a manufacturable item… as you said, we are making less and less. This is either indicative of a larger-scale societal transformation, or a bad thing. I’m afraid I’m inclined to assumed the latter.

    Thanks!

  • Mike "Scout" Gust

    Steerpike, that was exactly the argument Lanier was having with callers on the BBC. Lanier was all fatalistic about society’s drop in real productivity while his opponents claimed that this was a huge transformation and that he was just too old to grasp the coolness of it all. If you notice, the web address of that first Lanier link is well.com. I mean, that is old! The Well?

    Lanier’s thoughts were pretty much echoed by David Simon, one of the creators of The Wire. Here he speaks with Bill Moyers about the fate of paid journalism in the face of the web.

  • Spike

    I’ve read many criticisms of Facebook et. al.  I’ve also read contradictions of those criticisms, namely, that social sites are making people more connected than ever.  I think that that connectedness is an illusion.

    For several months at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 my daughter badgered me to join FB.  I could connect with her and some of her friends that I know as well as renew old acquaintances with some of her friend’s mothers.  I finally signed up so she’d quit the badgering. I used to check in every day to see what daughter and friends were saying because if I didn’t she’d ask if I saw her post, or a friend’s post. 

    What I’ve learned is this:

    1.  “Karen Likes John’s photo (or post)” IS NOT communication.

    2.  The reason I lost contact with some of these “friends” in the first place is that we no longer had anything in common.

    3.  I am bombarded with so many ads in so many places that I can do without more.  My policy is to never click on ads on FB or on many other sites. 

    4.  While FB’s original mission was connectedness/communication, I think it has become “Let’s make as much money from these fools as we can.”  “Wanna have gobs of fun playing a free game on FB?”  That game is gonna cost ya big, folks. 

    5.  Social sites are just more places where your personal info can be stolen.  There’s enough risk out there as it is.  Additional risk is not providing any valuable payoff for me.

    6.  Why do I want to “friend” a certain handbag manufacturer?  Why do I want to take a quiz that tells me what my personality is?  FB content providers tell you up front that if you click the link to take their quiz (goes for other types of content as well) you are giving them permission to access your profile info.  That’s ok.  I’ll also give you my SSN, bank account number and the key to my front door.  Not.

    7.  Don’t even get me started on the number of people who start an account in a pet’s name, and even have the pets making friends and posting.

    “…he was just too old to grasp the coolness of it all.”

    No, it’s just that most of us get to the age when we demand a bit of wheat with our chaff.

    At 38 my daughter is older than the average demographic of social sites although I know that that demographic is skewing up.  She seems to be cooling on FB.  Some of her 221 friends are as well.  Many of them do want some wheat.  When more cooling has taken place I will unjoin.

    I wonder, though, what new fad will come along when FB, Twitter and others run their course?  MySpace, anyone?

  • Mike "Scout" Gust

    My favorite line from the BBC interview was when Lanier was comparing MySpace and Facebook. He admitted that MySpace had some eye gougingly bad pages but said that he liked the “strangeness” of personalities that you get with it. With Facebook, he claimed that it was like looking at a tax form. A boring, watered down, bland presentation of people.

    I joined Facebook almost exactly a year ago. Apart from sparking up a new friendship with a very dear buddy, I’ve gotten about zero back from it. I sort of read with bemusement the activities of people I hardly know and could care less about. And when you consider how much information the devs harvest there…it’s scary. Lanier claims that the information is so far worthless to the investors and that the whole thing has become a sort useless ritual serving no purpose. He claimed that Google’s ads on the other hand will probably turn out to be the greatest advertising model ever created. He also thinks Google should stop before it’s too late but says they probably won’t. Just a glance at the side bar reveals about 4 ads for advertising agencies. Heh.

  • lokimotive

    Has anybody read Anti-Oedipus? I’m slogging my way through it (the third attempt I believe), and Deleuze and Gauttari’s ideas seem relevant to this in a way that I’m not sure I can articulate. This probably has something to do with a conversation I was eavesdropping on that, coincidentally, mentioned a lot of Deleuze and Gauttari’s theories. Someone was talking about another theorist (whose name I didn’t catch) who was defending “Generation Y” essentially. The argument went that Generation Y is an example of a “de-Oedipalized” cultural group (that’s Anti-Oedipus jargon, just stay with me). Apparently this meant that they made connections in a different manner than other generations, the idea of bricollage was brought up and things were generally mired in a lot of reasons why I don’t have my Masters in English. What I got from it was this Generation Y shoots out connections everywhere and attempts to make up a whole idea with them as opposed to relying on predefined pathways. In Deleuze and Guattari’s language: the schizo as opposed to Oedipus. In language that probably makes sense: Peer to Peer as opposed to client-server.

    So, of course, no one’s really right. I’m skeptical of the idea that Generation Y (full disclosure: I’m 29 so I’m part of that group) has enacted some sort of paradigm shift in how to operate in social systems, but facebook has changed how I connect with people. Then again, it’s not like I don’t value face to face communication.

    The future is somewhere in between. I’m really not cynical enough to believe that we are at the end times of civilized society because of Web 2.0. Instead society will change and stay the same because that’s what it does. Facebook is not the future; it’s probably a rung up the ladder though.

  • kaythomas

    To me, Facebook and Twitter are 0’s. They are not worth my time.  I do not care what someone I know or don’t know did a half hour ago or will do next.  I have met up with people on facebook I had lost contact with.  But, in truth, the reason I had lost contact was I was not that interested in staying in contact.

    I think for many people the Facebook/Twitter world is great.  For me it has nothing to offer. 
    kay

  • Matt "Steerpike" Sakey

    Tap has an automated device that twits… tweets… whatever whenever someone posts a new article. Just in case it draws some visitors.

    To be honest, though, I’m on Kay’s side of the fence, I don’t understand Twitter and I don’t understand why it’s so popular. I barely care what I’m doing from moment to moment, why should anyone else?

    I don’t get Facebook either, though I’m a member to keep track of all the girls who wouldn’t give me the time of day in high school.

  • Lewis B

    Tweets are great for giving me snippets of news.  If I like what I’ve read in the short paragraph tweets give, then I will visit the main page for that tweet. (Very good for following world news, favourite columnists, etc.)

    However, reading tweets from people such as “Just woke up, Madonna is giving me a massage while I shave my nuts” is not my idea of a good read.

  • Toger

    I use tweets the same way Lewis does. Of the people/things I follow, if the tweet is interesting I’ll follow the link to read the entire article. I follow fairly intelligent people, so I’m not subjected to the idiocy of “Just brushed my teeth while sitting on toilet”.

  • Gregg B

    @loki: I’m afraid I’ve not heard of them. I’m a couple of years below you so that puts me in the same Generation Y as well. I read through a few of those links Scout posted as well as a few more on Lanier’s new book “You Are Not a Gadget” and it took me a fair while to get to the crux of what he is saying and he has a lot to say, most of which I find very confusing.

    As a graphic designer the whole “everything is becoming advertising” thing has been bothering me for years. The incessant barrage of advertising is like fingernails on the chalkboard of my soul, which sort of makes me a hypocrite. After all the years of tuning my art and design skillz my creative abilities have amounted to nothing more than crafting pretty ads that sell things. Non of it speaks any truth or has any sort of ‘beauty’; it’s just stone cold mechanical capitalism. Granted there are ads out there that are beautiful, clever and visionary but the front line stuff is as dull as it gets. I’m sure this isn’t strictly what he’s getting at but it’s definitely something that irks me in relation to Scout’s last remark.

    Anyway, I remember Twitter just exploding in what seemed like the space of a week and I still can’t fathom the allure of it aside from providing a direct stream of consciousness from famous folk to their ravenous fans. I wish I’d thought of it to be honest. I can see the creators sitting around a table staring at Facebook and then saying “I know! We make a website that’s just about status updates! You can even update them with your mobile phone!”.

    With regards to Twitter news snippets, unless it’s for a phone, I don’t see the point because RSS feeds do a great job. At present too great; I simply can’t keep up with my subscriptions. There’s too much information on this super highway.

  • Jen

    Twitter is officially the dumbest thing ever.

    That said, it looks like I will have to be the official “tweeter” for my day job before too long. I can’t wait! (roll eyes)

  • xtal

    I’m with everyone else here. I’m glad to say I’ve never signed up for Facebook; I fear that if I ever had I would have long ago died from loss of brain cells due to reading moronic status updates. It’s as Kay said: ninety-five per cent of people with whom you lose contact are probably no longer in your life because you have nothing left in common. And echoing Steerpike’s comment, me eating toast and jam on a Sunday morning watching Fawlty Towers is not interesting, not to me. Why the hell would anyone else give a shit?

    Twitter I signed up for about a year ago, not really understanding what it was. I now understand it…but don’t care to use it often. I have made 58 tweets over that year. I suspect for some that is a daily or weekly average. It’s just Facebook status updates without all the drunken photographs. I admit it can be mildly useful for following, say, a news site. Usually when I hop on my twitter (once every two weeks??) it reminds me that I should read The Onion more often. That’s about it.

    Let’s see… looking at the actual humans I follow, um… Wil Wheaton is happy that the LA Kings have won 9 games in a row, my sister-in-law thought our dinner tonight was “delicious,” and Kevin Smith’s batteries are recharged … or something.

    Wow, my life is already getting better!

    p.s.  <—– Gen Y'er (can we call ourselves that?) and proud that when I Google my own name a real estate company pops up.

  • Fraser

    Twitter is exactly as useless as the person who’s writing it. If someone is telling you boring shit over Twitter, it’s the person wasting your time, not the delivery channel.

    MySpace is the same, but it seems more intrinsically garbage because for some reason almost everyone who used it was an intellectual embryo with a fetish for unreadable hyperneon text on top of garish uninteresting photos. Facebook’s great trick is that it prevents you from realising that most of your friends would make a brutally hideous homepage for themselves if they could.

    That’s the argument against the whole of this post: the internet isn’t evil, but the people who use it might be. It’s people who make business models successful; people who make money flow to advertisers instead of artists, by buying into the advertising.

    This has been a pretty didactic post, so let me compensate by saying VIDEOGAMES WOOOOOOO!!!

  • Gregg B

    Good point about not blaming the delivery channel Fraser. I seem to recall Lanier saying that he preferred the personality that MySpace has over Facebook despite its Craptastic Pages of Illegibility. I’m trying to think of something intelligent to follow that up with but my brain is failing me at the moment, so…

    VIDEOGAMES WOOOOOO!!!

  • Jason Venter

    Fraser, I really loved your following comment:

    “Facebook’s great trick is that it prevents you from realising that most of your friends would make a brutally hideous homepage for themselves if they could.”

    I think that may just be one of the most hilariously true comments I’ve read in a comments area on any video game web site ever.  That sounds overly dramatic, I know, but I actually mean it.  Kudos to you!

  • Mike "Scout" Gust

    Yeah but don’t you miss all the ugliness of MySpace? All those hideous pages at least had personality or what Lanier called the “strangeness of the person” to them.

    I actually don’t agree with a lot of what Lanier says esp “the hive mind must die” stuff. But I do think he is right about the spirit shriveling blandness of Facebook.

    I also suspect that Twitter is going to be around for a while. It will be more and more influential. People are simply not as willing to ingest huge amounts of information in the form of pages of text anymore. The delivery systems that succeed will be those that can communicate a lot of information in a short amount of time. Most days we want “glimpses” or “snapshots” not total immersion. Lewis, Toger and Fraser are correct in that you get out of it what you decide to follow.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.