In this post, I’ll show you how to create a sample dataset for Amazon Macie, and how you can use Amazon Macie to implement data-centric compliance and security analytics in your Amazon S3 environment. I’ll also dive into the different kinds of credentials, document types, and PII detections supported by Macie. First, I’ll walk through creating a “getting started” sample set of artificial, generated data that you can use to test Macie capabilities and start building your own policies and alerts.
Create a realistic data sample set in S3
I’ll use amazon-macie-activity-generator, which we call “AMG” for short, a sample application developed by AWS that generates realistic content and accesses your test account to create the data. AMG uses AWS CloudFormation, AWS Lambda, and Python’s excellent Faker library to create a data set with artificial—but realistic—data classifications and access patterns to help test some of the features and capabilities of Macie. AMG is released under Amazon Software License 1.0, and we’ll accept pull requests on our GitHub repository and monitor any issues that are opened so we can try to fix bugs and consider new feature requests.
The following diagram shows a high level architecture overview of the components that will be created in your AWS account for AMG. For additional detail about these components and their relationships, review the CloudFormation setup script.
Depending on the data types specified in your JSON configuration template (details below), AMG will periodically generate artificial documents for the specified S3 target with a PutObject action. By default, the CloudFormation stack uses a configuration file that instructs AMG to create a new, private S3 bucket that can only be accessed by authorized AWS users/roles in the same account as the bucket. All the S3 objects with fake data in this bucket have a private ACL and inherit the bucket’s access control configuration. All generated objects feature the header in the example below, and AMG supports all fake data providers offered by https://faker.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html, as well as a few of AMG‘s own custom fake data providers requested by our customers: aws_creds, slack_creds, github_creds, facebook_creds, linux_shadow, rsa, linux_passwd, dsa, ec, pgp, cert, itin, swift_code, and cve.
# Sample Report - No identification of actual persons or places is # intended or should be inferred
74323 Julie Field Lake Joshuamouth, OR 30055-3905 1-196-191-4438x974 53001 Paul Union New John, HI 94740 Mastercard Amanda Wells 5135725008183484 09/26 CVV: 550
354-70-6172 242 George Plaza East Lawrencefurt, VA 37287-7620 GB73WAUS0628038988364 587 Silva Village Pearsonburgh, NM 11616-7231 LDNM1948227117807 American Express Brett Garza 347965534580275 05/20 CID: 4758
599.335.2742 JCB 15 digit Michael Arias 210069190253121 03/27 CVC: 861
Create your amazon-macie-activity-generator CloudFormation stack
You can deploy AMG in your AWS account by using either these methods:
Log in to the AWS Console in a region supported by Amazon Macie, which currently includes US East (N. Virginia), US West (Oregon).
Select the One-click CloudFormation launch stack, or launch CloudFormation using the template above.
Read our terms, select the Acknowledgement box, and then select Create.
Creating the data takes a few minutes, and you can periodically refresh CloudWatch to track progress.
Add the new sample data to Macie
Now, I’ll log into the Macie console and add the newly created sample data buckets for analysis by Macie.
Note: If you don’t explicitly specify a bucket for S3 targets in CloudFormation, AMG will use the S3 bucket that’s created by default for the stack, which will be printed out in the CloudFormation stack’s output.
To add buckets for data classification, follow these steps:
Log in to Amazon Macie.
Select Integrations, and then select Services.
Select your account, and then select Details from the Amazon S3 card.
Select your newly created buckets for Full classification, including existing data.
For additional details on configuring Macie, refer to our getting started documentation.
Macie classifies all historical and newly created data in the buckets created by AMG, and the data will be available in the Macie console as it’s classified. Typically, you can expect the data in the sample set to be classified within 60 minutes of the time it was selected for analysis.
Classifying objects with Macie
To see the objects in your test sample set, in Macie, open the Research tab, and then select the S3 Objects index. We’ll use the regular expression search capability in Macie to find any objects written to buckets that start with “amazon-macie-activity-generator-defaults3bucket”. To search for this, type the following text into the Macie search box and select the magnifying glass icon.
From here, you can see a nice breakdown of the kinds of objects that have been classified by Macie, as well as the object-specific details. Create an advanced search using Lucene Query Syntax, and save it as an alert to be matched against any newly created data.
Analyzing accesses to your test data
In addition to classifying data, Macie tracks all control plane and data plane accesses to your content using CloudTrail. To see accesses to your generated environment (created periodically by AMG to mimic user activity), on the Macie navigation bar, select Research, select the CloudTrail data index, and then use the following search to identify our generated role activity:
From this search, you can dive into the user activity (IAM users, assumed roles, federated users, and so on), which is summarized in 5-minute aggregations (user sessions). For example, in the screen shot you can see that one of our AMG-generated users listed objects one time (ListObjects) and wrote 56 objects to S3 (PutObject) during a 5-minute period.
Macie features both predictive (machine learning-based) and basic (rule-based) alerts, including alerts on unencrypted credentials being uploaded to S3 (because this activity might not follow compliance best practices), risky activity such as data exfiltration, and user-defined alerts that are based on saved searches. To see alerts that have been generated based on AMG‘s activity, on the Macie navigation bar, select Alerts.
AMG will continue to run, periodically uploading content to the specified S3 buckets. To stop AMG, delete the AMG CloudFormation stack and associated resources here.
What are the costs?
Macie has a free tier enabling up to 1GB of content to be analyzed per month at no cost to you. By default, AMG will write approximately 10MB of objects to Amazon S3 per day, and you will incur charges for data classification after crossing the 1GB monthly free tier. Running continuously, AMG will generate about 310MB of content per month (10MB/day x 31 days), which will stay below the free tier. Any data use above 1GB will be billed at the Macie public price of $5/GB. For more detail, see the Macie pricing documentation.
If you have feedback about this blog post, submit comments in the Comments section below. If you have questions about this blog post, start a new thread on the Amazon Macie forum or contact AWS Support.
(те всичките лаптопи се правят в Китай вече, ама не ми хрумва как да го кръстя иначе)
Преди някакво време разбрах за един проект на ентусиасти от Китай за нови дъна за стари лаптопи. От много време ми липсваше 4:3 дисплея, T420 от време на време ми беше бавен (дори с 16GB памет и SSD), по-новите thinkpad-и са с гадна клавиатура, а Retro проекта в крайна сметка не беше customizable и не беше приемлив (с тая NVidia карта и широк дисплей, да не говорим за цената).
Поръчах си един t60p от ebay, и след като дойде тръгнах да си поръчвам дъното. От форума на хората и някаква facebook страница намерих контакти, писах си с един човек, който ми предложи директно лаптоп, но аз си поръчах само дъното (in hindsight, да си бях взел цял лаптоп). Няколко неща по темата с поръчването: – опциите бяха SWIFT и western union. Не ми се разхождаше, та го направих по SWIFT, и там се оказа, че има допълнителни такси, които взимат от получателя (които не могат да вземат от мен); – За освобождаване от митница ми поискаха следните неща: фактура (която поисках да ми издадат, щото нямаше) която включва и цената и транспортните разходи, EORI номер, пълномощно да ме представляват и документ за направеното плащане (изискване на митниците за стоки от Китай и Хонг Конг, пише “SWIFT или PayPal”); – EORI номер може да си издадете безплатно, ако имате електронен подпис и търпение (бях си издал за нещо друго, отне около седмица); – DHL могат да пратят как изглежда митническата декларация, да си я платите с един online превод и да си получите нещата (иначе искат 24 лв да направят превода те);
Дъното беше $780 и доставка, вариантът за това дъно с цял лаптоп (без памет) беше $980 за 1400×1050 матрица и $1100 с 1600×1200 матрица (нови, IPS, по думи на продавача).
Хората си имат и форум, в който има и инструкции за сглобяване (google translate е ваш добър приятел за тия страници). При мен сглобяването се забави, понеже се оказа, че има вариант на T60p, който е с 16:10 матрица, за който дъното не става, и аз съм взел точно такъв, та си поръчвах нов и чаках да пристигне.
Последва сглабянето с помощта на добрите хора от adsys (на които им отрових живота, щото се оказа доста пипкава работа): – има малко рязане по кутията (има го описано във форума, със снимки); – болтовете за закачане са по-малко, дупките на някои са запушени; – на дъното до конектора за монитор има превключвател за типа на дисплея (1024×768 или по-голям); – трябва ви DDR4 памет; – най-вероятно wifi картата от преди няма да ви върши работа, аз си взех моята от T420-ката, и малко трябваше да се лепне с тиксо, понеже е половината слот и нямам преходник; – CD-то от T60 няма да влезе, понеже е PATA, а конектора на дъното е SATA (не, че ползвам CD). Трябва да си измисля нещо за запушване на дупката;
Неща за дооправяне: – поне за момента под linux GPU-то не работи (забива на boot), и за това си ползвам xfwm4 вместо compiz, submit-нал съм bug report; – горните бутони на touchpad-а спират да работят след suspend/resume, направил съм един fix, ама трябва да събера желание да рестартирам.
Моята работна среда на 4:3 се усеща доста по-приятно и най-накрая мога да си пусна email клиента в режим като преди (отляво списък папки, отдясно разделено на две – отгоре списък писма, отдолу отвореното писмо, вместо три вертикални колони, дето едвам пасваха). Също така с тоя процесор вече firefox-а се движи почти прилично, като си оправя и GPU-то, вероятно всичко ще лети.
My career is a different story. Over the past two decades and a change, I went from writing CGI scripts and setting up WAN routers for a chain of shopping malls, to doing pentests for institutional customers, to designing a series of network monitoring platforms and handling incident response for a big telco, to building and running the product security org for one of the largest companies in the world. It’s been an interesting ride – and now that I’m on the hook for the well-being of about 100 folks across more than a dozen subteams around the world, I’ve been thinking a bit about the lessons learned along the way.
Of course, I’m a bit hesitant to write such a post: sometimes, your efforts pan out not because of your approach, but despite it – and it’s possible to draw precisely the wrong conclusions from such anecdotes. Still, I’m very proud of the culture we’ve created and the caliber of folks working on our team. It happened through the work of quite a few talented tech leads and managers even before my time, but it did not happen by accident – so I figured that my observations may be useful for some, as long as they are taken with a grain of salt.
But first, let me start on a somewhat somber note: what nobody tells you is that one’s level on the leadership ladder tends to be inversely correlated with several measures of happiness. The reason is fairly simple: as you get more senior, a growing number of people will come to you expecting you to solve increasingly fuzzy and challenging problems – and you will no longer be patted on the back for doing so. This should not scare you away from such opportunities, but it definitely calls for a particular mindset: your motivation must come from within. Look beyond the fight-of-the-day; find satisfaction in seeing how far your teams have come over the years.
With that out of the way, here’s a collection of notes, loosely organized into three major themes.
The curse of a techie leader
Perhaps the most interesting observation I have is that for a person coming from a technical background, building a healthy team is first and foremost about the subtle art of letting go.
There is a natural urge to stay involved in any project you’ve started or helped improve; after all, it’s your baby: you’re familiar with all the nuts and bolts, and nobody else can do this job as well as you. But as your sphere of influence grows, this becomes a choke point: there are only so many things you could be doing at once. Just as importantly, the project-hoarding behavior robs more junior folks of the ability to take on new responsibilities and bring their own ideas to life. In other words, when done properly, delegation is not just about freeing up your plate; it’s also about empowerment and about signalling trust.
Of course, when you hand your project over to somebody else, the new owner will initially be slower and more clumsy than you; but if you pick the new leads wisely, give them the right tools and the right incentives, and don’t make them deathly afraid of messing up, they will soon excel at their new jobs – and be grateful for the opportunity.
A related affliction of many accomplished techies is the conviction that they know the answers to every question even tangentially related to their domain of expertise; that belief is coupled with a burning desire to have the last word in every debate. When practiced in moderation, this behavior is fine among peers – but for a leader, one of the most important skills to learn is knowing when to keep your mouth shut: people learn a lot better by experimenting and making small mistakes than by being schooled by their boss, and they often try to read into your passing remarks. Don’t run an authoritarian camp focused on total risk aversion or perfectly efficient resource management; just set reasonable boundaries and exit conditions for experiments so that they don’t spiral out of control – and be amazed by the results every now and then.
Death by planning
When nothing is on fire, it’s easy to get preoccupied with maintaining the status quo. If your current headcount or budget request lists all the same projects as last year’s, or if you ever find yourself ending an argument by deferring to a policy or a process document, it’s probably a sign that you’re getting complacent. In security, complacency usually ends in tears – and when it doesn’t, it leads to burnout or boredom.
In my experience, your goal should be to develop a cadre of managers or tech leads capable of coming up with clever ideas, prioritizing them among themselves, and seeing them to completion without your day-to-day involvement. In your spare time, make it your mission to challenge them to stay ahead of the curve. Ask your vendor security lead how they’d streamline their work if they had a 40% jump in the number of vendors but no extra headcount; ask your product security folks what’s the second line of defense or containment should your primary defenses fail. Help them get good ideas off the ground; set some mental success and failure criteria to be able to cut your losses if something does not pan out.
Of course, malfunctions happen even in the best-run teams; to spot trouble early on, instead of overzealous project tracking, I found it useful to encourage folks to run a data-driven org. I’d usually ask them to imagine that a brand new VP shows up in our office and, as his first order of business, asks “why do you have so many people here and how do I know they are doing the right things?”. Not everything in security can be quantified, but hard data can validate many of your assumptions – and will alert you to unseen issues early on.
When focusing on data, it’s important not to treat pie charts and spreadsheets as an art unto itself; if you run a security review process for your company, your CSAT scores are going to reach 100% if you just rubberstamp every launch request within ten minutes of receiving it. Make sure you’re asking the right questions; instead of “how satisfied are you with our process”, try “is your product better as a consequence of talking to us?”
Whenever things are not progressing as expected, it is a natural instinct to fall back to micromanagement, but it seldom truly cures the ill. It’s probable that your team disagrees with your vision or its feasibility – and that you’re either not listening to their feedback, or they don’t think you’d care. It’s good to assume that most of your employees are as smart or smarter than you; barking your orders at them more loudly or more frequently does not lead anyplace good. It’s good to listen to them and either present new facts or work with them on a plan you can all get behind.
In some circumstances, all that’s needed is honesty about the business trade-offs, so that your team feels like your “partner in crime”, not a victim of circumstance. For example, we’d tell our folks that by not falling behind on basic, unglamorous work, we earn the trust of our VPs and SVPs – and that this translates into the independence and the resources we need to pursue more ambitious ideas without being told what to do; it’s how we game the system, so to speak. Oh: leading by example is a pretty powerful tool at your disposal, too.
The human factor
I’ve come to appreciate that hiring decent folks who can get along with others is far more important than trying to recruit conference-circuit superstars. In fact, hiring superstars is a decidedly hit-and-miss affair: while certainly not a rule, there is a proportion of folks who put the maintenance of their celebrity status ahead of job responsibilities or the well-being of their peers.
For teams, one of the most powerful demotivators is a sense of unfairness and disempowerment. This is where tech-originating leaders can shine, because their teams usually feel that their bosses understand and can evaluate the merits of the work. But it also means you need to be decisive and actually solve problems for them, rather than just letting them vent. You will need to make unpopular decisions every now and then; in such cases, I think it’s important to move quickly, rather than prolonging the uncertainty – but it’s also important to sincerely listen to concerns, explain your reasoning, and be frank about the risks and trade-offs.
Whenever you see a clash of personalities on your team, you probably need to respond swiftly and decisively; being right should not justify being a bully. If you don’t react to repeated scuffles, your best people will probably start looking for other opportunities: it’s draining to put up with constant pie fights, no matter if the pies are thrown straight at you or if you just need to duck one every now and then.
More broadly, personality differences seem to be a much better predictor of conflict than any technical aspects underpinning a debate. As a boss, you need to identify such differences early on and come up with creative solutions. Sometimes, all you need is taking some badly-delivered but valid feedback and having a conversation with the other person, asking some questions that can help them reach the same conclusions without feeling that their worldview is under attack. Other times, the only path forward is making sure that some folks simply don’t run into each for a while.
Finally, dealing with low performers is a notoriously hard but important part of the game. Especially within large companies, there is always the temptation to just let it slide: sideline a struggling person and wait for them to either get over their issues or leave. But this sends an awful message to the rest of the team; for better or worse, fairness is important to most. Simply firing the low performers is seldom the best solution, though; successful recovery cases are what sets great managers apart from the average ones.
Oh, one more thought: people in leadership roles have their allegiance divided between the company and the people who depend on them. The obligation to the company is more formal, but the impact you have on your team is longer-lasting and more intimate. When the obligations to the employer and to your team collide in some way, make sure you can make the right call; it might be one of the the most consequential decisions you’ll ever make.
B2’s API is similar to, but simpler than Amazon’s S3 API, making it super easy for developers to integrate with B2 Cloud Storage.
10 View Code Examples To Get Your B2 Project Started
The B2 API is well documented and has code examples for cURL, Java, Python, Swift, Ruby, C#, and PHP. For example, here’s how to create a B2 Bucket.
11 Developers can set the B2 part size as low as 5 MB
When working with large files, the minimum file part size can be set as low as 5MB or as high as 5GB. This gives developers the ability to maximize the throughput of B2 data uploads and downloads. See Large Files and Downloading for more developer tips.
So I thought I’d answer this question. I’m not a “chipmaker”, but I’ve been optimizing low-level assembly x86 assembly language for a couple of decades.
I’d love a blogpost written from the perspective of a chipmaker – Why this issue exists. I’d never question their competency, but it seems like a violation of expectations in hindsight. Based on my very limited understanding of these issues.
The tl;dr version is this: the CPUs have no bug. The results are correct, it’s just that the timing is different. CPU designers will never fix the general problem of undetermined timing.
CPUs are deterministic in the results they produce. If you add 5+6, you always get 11 — always. On the other hand, the amount of time they take is non-deterministic. Run a benchmark on your computer. Now run it again. The amount of time it took varies, for a lot of reasons.
That CPUs take an unknown amount of time is an inherent problem in CPU design. Even if you do everything right, “interrupts” from clock timers and network cards will still cause undefined timing problems. Therefore, CPU designers have thrown the concept of “deterministic time” out the window.
The biggest source of non-deterministic behavior is the high-speed memory cache on the chip. When a piece of data is in the cache, the CPU accesses it immediately. When it isn’t, the CPU has to stop and wait for slow main memory. Other things happening in the system impacts the cache, unexpectedly evicting recently used data for one purpose in favor of data for another purpose.
Hackers love “non-deterministic”, because while such things are unknowable in theory, they are often knowable in practice.
That’s the case of the granddaddy of all hacker exploits, the “buffer overflow”. From the programmer’s perspective, the bug will result in just the software crashing for undefinable reasons. From the hacker’s perspective, they reverse engineer what’s going on underneath, then carefully craft buffer contents so the program doesn’t crash, but instead continue to run the code the hacker supplies within the buffer. Buffer overflows are undefined in theory, well-defined in practice.
Hackers have already been exploiting this defineable/undefinable timing problems with the cache for a long time. An example is cache timing attacks on AES. AES reads a matrix from memory as it encrypts things. By playing with the cache, evicting things, timing things, you can figure out the pattern of memory accesses, and hence the secret key.
Such cache timing attacks have been around since the beginning, really, and it’s simply an unsolvable problem. Instead, we have workarounds, such as changing our crypto algorithms to not depend upon cache, or better yet, implement them directly in the CPU (such as the Intel AES specialized instructions).
What’s happened today with Meltdown is that incompletely executed instructions, which discard their results, do affect the cache. We can then recover those partial/temporary/discarded results by measuring the cache timing. This has been known for a while, but we couldn’t figure out how to successfully exploit this, as this paper from Anders Fogh reports. Hackers fixed this, making it practically exploitable.
As a CPU designer, Intel has few good options.
Fixing cache timing attacks is an impossibility. They can do some tricks, such as allowing some software to reserve part of the cache for private use, for special crypto operations, but the general problem is unsolvable.
Fixing the “incomplete results” problem from affecting the cache is also difficult. Intel has the fastest CPUs, and the reason is such speculative execution. The other CPU designers have the same problem: fixing the three problems identified today would cause massive performance issues. They’ll come up with improvements, probably, but not complete solutions.
Instead, the fix is within the operating system. Frankly, it’s a needed change that should’ve been done a decade ago. They’ve just been putting it off because of the performance hit. Now that the change has been forced to happen, CPU designers will probably figure out ways to mitigate the performance cost.
Thus, the Intel CPU you buy a year from now will have some partial fixes for these exactly problems without addressing the larger security concerns. They will also have performance enhancements to make the operating system patches faster.
But the underlying theoretical problem will never be solved, and is essentially unsolvable.
At re:Invent 2014, we announced AWS Lambda, what is now the center of the serverless platform at AWS, and helped ignite the trend of companies building serverless applications.
This year, at re:Invent 2017, the topic of serverless was everywhere. We were incredibly excited to see the energy from everyone attending 7 workshops, 15 chalk talks, 20 skills sessions and 27 breakout sessions. Many of these sessions were repeated due to high demand, so we are happy to summarize and provide links to the recordings and slides of these sessions.
Over the course of the week leading up to and then the week of re:Invent, we also had over 15 new features and capabilities across a number of serverless services, including AWS Lambda, Amazon API Gateway, AWS [email protected], AWS SAM, and the newly announced AWS Serverless Application Repository!
Amazon API Gateway Supports Access Logging – The access logging feature lets you generate access logs in different formats such as CLF (Common Log Format), JSON, XML, and CSV. The access logs can be fed into your existing analytics or log processing tools so you can perform more in-depth analysis or take action in response to the log data.
AWS Serverless Application Repository
Serverless Application Repository is a new service (currently in preview) that aids in the publication, discovery, and deployment of serverless applications. With it you’ll be able to find shared serverless applications that you can launch in your account, while also sharing ones that you’ve created for others to do the same.
Coming up with the right mix of talks for an event like this can be quite a challenge. The Product, Marketing, and Developer Advocacy teams for Serverless at AWS spent weeks reading through dozens of talk ideas to boil it down to the final list.
From feedback at other AWS events and webinars, we knew that customers were looking for talks that focused on concrete examples of solving problems with serverless, how to perform common tasks such as deployment, CI/CD, monitoring, and troubleshooting, and to see customer and partner examples solving real world problems. To that extent we tried to settle on a good mix based on attendee experience and provide a track full of rich content.
Below are the recordings and slides of breakout sessions from re:Invent 2017. We’ve organized them for those getting started, those who are already beginning to build serverless applications, and the experts out there already running them at scale. Some of the videos and slides haven’t been posted yet, and so we will update this list as they become available.
At re:Invent, we delivered instructor-led skills sessions to help attendees new to serverless applications get started quickly. The content from these sessions is already online and you can do the hands-on labs yourself! Build a Serverless web application
Still looking for more?
We also recently completely overhauled the main Serverless landing page for AWS. This includes a new Resources page containing case studies, webinars, whitepapers, customer stories, reference architectures, and even more Getting Started tutorials. Check it out!
An anonymous donor asked a question that I can’t even begin to figure out how to answer, but they also said anything else is fine, so here’s anything else.
I’ve been avoiding writing about game physics, since I want to save it for ✨ the book I’m writing ✨, but that book will almost certainly not touch on Unity. Here, then, is a brief run through some of the brick walls I ran into while trying to convince Unity to do 2D platforming.
This is fairly high-level — there are no blocks of code or helpful diagrams. I’m just getting this out of my head because it’s interesting. If you want more gritty details, I guess you’ll have to wait for ✨ the book ✨.
I hadn’t used Unity before. I hadn’t even used a “real” physics engine before. My games so far have mostly used LÖVE, a Lua-based engine. LÖVE includes box2d bindings, but for various reasons (not all of them good), I opted to avoid them and instead write my own physics completely from scratch. (How, you ask? ✨ Book ✨!)
I was invited to work on a Unity project, Chaos Composer, that someone else had already started. It had basic movement already implemented; I taught myself Unity’s physics system by hacking on it. It’s entirely possible that none of this is actually the best way to do anything, since I was really trying to reproduce my own homegrown stuff in Unity, but it’s the best I’ve managed to come up with.
Two recurring snags were that you can’t ask Unity to do multiple physics updates in a row, and sometimes getting the information I wanted was difficult. Working with my own code spoiled me a little, since I could invoke it at any time and ask it anything I wanted; Unity, on the other hand, is someone else’s black box with a rigid interface on top.
Also, wow, Googling for a lot of this was not quite as helpful as expected. A lot of what’s out there is just the first thing that works, and often that’s pretty hacky and imposes severe limits on the game design (e.g., “this won’t work with slopes”). Basic movement and collision are the first thing you do, which seems to me like the worst time to be locking yourself out of a lot of design options. I tried very (very, very, very) hard to minimize those kinds of constraints.
When I showed up, movement was already working. Problem solved!
Like any good programmer, I immediately set out to un-solve it. Given a “real” physics engine like Unity prominently features, you have two options: ⓐ treat the player as a physics object, or ⓑ don’t. The existing code went with option ⓑ, like I’d done myself with LÖVE, and like I’d seen countless people advise. Using a physics sim makes for bad platforming.
But… why? I believed it, but I couldn’t concretely defend it. I had to know for myself. So I started a blank project, drew some physics boxes, and wrote a dozen-line player controller.
Ah! Immediate enlightenment.
If the player was sliding down a wall, and I tried to move them into the wall, they would simply freeze in midair until I let go of the movement key. The trouble is that the physics sim works in terms of forces — moving the player involves giving them a nudge in some direction, like a giant invisible hand pushing them around the level. Surprise! If you press a real object against a real wall with your real hand, you’ll see the same effect — friction will cancel out gravity, and the object will stay in midair..
Platformer movement, as it turns out, doesn’t make any goddamn physical sense. What is air control? What are you pushing against? Nothing, really; we just have it because it’s nice to play with, because not having it is a nightmare.
I looked to see if there were any common solutions to this, and I only really found one: make all your walls frictionless.
Game development is full of hacks like this, and I… don’t like them. I can accept that minor hacks are necessary sometimes, but this one makes an early and widespread change to a fundamental system to “fix” something that was wrong in the first place. It also imposes an “invisible” requirement, something I try to avoid at all costs — if you forget to make a particular wall frictionless, you’ll never know unless you happen to try sliding down it.
And so, I swiftly returned to the existing code. It wasn’t too different from what I’d come up with for LÖVE: it applied gravity by hand, tracked the player’s velocity, computed the intended movement each frame, and moved by that amount. The interesting thing was that it used MovePosition, which schedules a movement for the next physics update and stops the movement if the player hits something solid.
It’s kind of a nice hybrid approach, actually; all the “physics” for conscious actors is done by hand, but the physics engine is still used for collision detection. It’s also used for collision rejection — if the player manages to wedge themselves several pixels into a solid object, for example, the physics engine will try to gently nudge them back out of it with no extra effort required on my part. I still haven’t figured out how to get that to work with my homegrown stuff, which is built to prevent overlap rather than to jiggle things out of it.
Our player is a dynamic body with rotation lock and no gravity. Why not just use a kinematic body?
I must be missing something, because I do not understand the point of kinematic bodies. I ran into this with Godot, too, which documented them the same way: as intended for use as players and other manually-moved objects. But by default, they don’t even collide with other kinematic bodies or static geometry. What? There’s a checkbox to turn this on, which I enabled, but then I found out that MovePosition doesn’t stop kinematic bodies when they hit something, so I would’ve had to cast along the intended path of movement to figure out when to stop, thus duplicating the same work the physics engine was about to do.
But that’s impossible anyway! Static geometry generally wants to be made of edge colliders, right? They don’t care about concave/convex. Imagine the player is standing on the ground near a wall and tries to move towards the wall. Both the ground and the wall are different edges from the same edge collider.
If you try to cast the player’s hitbox horizontally, parallel to the ground, you’ll only get one collision: the existing collision with the ground. Casting doesn’t distinguish between touching and hitting. And because Unity only reports one collision per collider, and because the ground will always show up first, you will never find out about the impending wall collision.
So you’re forced to either use raycasts for collision detection or decomposed polygons for world geometry, both of which are slightly worse tools for no real gain.
I ended up sticking with a dynamic body.
Oh, one other thing that doesn’t really fit anywhere else: keep track of units! If you’re adding something called “velocity” directly to something called “position”, something has gone very wrong. Acceleration is distance per time squared; velocity is distance per time; position is distance. You must multiply or divide by time to convert between them.
I never even, say, add a constant directly to position every frame; I always phrase it as velocity and multiply by Δt. It keeps the units consistent: time is always in seconds, not in tics.
A sort of pre-problem here was detecting whether we’re on a slope, which means detecting the ground. The codebase originally used a manual physics query of the area around the player’s feet to check for the ground, which seems to be somewhat common, but that can’t tell me the angle of the detected ground. (It’s also kind of error-prone, since “around the player’s feet” has to be specified by hand and may not stay correct through animations or changes in the hitbox.)
I replaced that with what I’d eventually settled on in LÖVE: detect the ground by detecting collisions, and looking at the normal of the collision. A normal is a vector that points straight out from a surface, so if you’re standing on the ground, the normal points straight up; if you’re on a 10° incline, the normal points 10° away from straight up.
Not all collisions are with the ground, of course, so I assumed something is ground if the normal pointed away from gravity. (I like this definition more than “points upwards”, because it avoids assuming anything about the direction of gravity, which leaves some interesting doors open for later on.) That’s easily detected by taking the dot product — if it’s negative, the collision was with the ground, and I now have the normal of the ground.
Actually doing this in practice was slightly tricky. With my LÖVE engine, I could cram this right into the middle of collision resolution. With Unity, not quite so much. I went through a couple iterations before I really grasped Unity’s execution order, which I guess I will have to briefly recap for this to make sense.
Unity essentially has two update cycles. It performs physics updates at fixed intervals for consistency, and updates everything else just before rendering. Within a single frame, Unity does as many fixed physics updates as it has spare time for (which might be zero, one, or more), then does a regular update, then renders. User code can implement either or both of Update, which runs during a regular update, and FixedUpdate, which runs just before Unity does a physics pass.
So my solution was:
At the very end of FixedUpdate, clear the actor’s “on ground” flag and ground normal.
During OnCollisionEnter2D and OnCollisionStay2D (which are called from within a physics pass), if there’s a collision that looks like it’s with the ground, set the “on ground” flag and ground normal. (If there are multiple ground collisions, well, good luck figuring out the best way to resolve that! At the moment I’m just taking the first and hoping for the best.)
That means there’s a brief window between the end of FixedUpdate and Unity’s physics pass during which a grounded actor might mistakenly believe it’s not on the ground, which is a bit of a shame, but there are very few good reasons for anything to be happening in that window.
Okay! Now we can do slopes.
Just kidding! First we have to do sliding.
When I first looked at this code, it didn’t apply gravity while the player was on the ground. I think I may have had some problems with detecting the ground as result, since the player was no longer pushing down against it? Either way, it seemed like a silly special case, so I made gravity always apply.
Lo! I was a fool. The player could no longer move.
Why? Because MovePosition does exactly what it promises. If the player collides with something, they’ll stop moving. Applying gravity means that the player is trying to move diagonally downwards into the ground, and so MovePosition stops them immediately.
Hence, sliding. I don’t want the player to actually try to move into the ground. I want them to move the unblocked part of that movement. For flat ground, that means the horizontal part, which is pretty much the same as discarding gravity. For sloped ground, it’s a bit more complicated!
Okay but actually it’s less complicated than you’d think. It can be done with some cross products fairly easily, but Unity makes it even easier with a couple casts. There’s a Vector3.ProjectOnPlane function that projects an arbitrary vector on a plane given by its normal — exactly the thing I want! So I apply that to the attempted movement before passing it along to MovePosition. I do the same thing with the current velocity, to prevent the player from accelerating infinitely downwards while standing on flat ground.
One other thing: I don’t actually use the detected ground normal for this. The player might be touching two ground surfaces at the same time, and I’d want to project on both of them. Instead, I use the player body’s GetContacts method, which returns contact points (and normals!) for everything the player is currently touching. I believe those contact points are tracked by the physics engine anyway, so asking for them doesn’t require any actual physics work.
(Looking at the code I have, I notice that I still only perform the slide for surfaces facing upwards — but I’d want to slide against sloped ceilings, too. Why did I do this? Maybe I should remove that.)
(Also, I’m pretty sure projecting a vector on a plane is non-commutative, which raises the question of which order the projections should happen in and what difference it makes. I don’t have a good answer.)
(I note that my LÖVE setup does something slightly different: it just tries whatever the movement ought to be, and if there’s a collision, then it projects — and tries again with the remaining movement. But I can’t ask Unity to do multiple moves in one physics update, alas.)
Okay! Now, slopes. But actually, with the above work done, slopes are most of the way there already.
One obvious problem is that the player tries to move horizontally even when on a slope, and the easy fix is to change their movement from speed * Vector2.right to speed * new Vector2(ground.y, -ground.x) while on the ground. That’s the ground normal rotated a quarter-turn clockwise, so for flat ground it still points to the right, and in general it points rightwards along the ground. (Note that it assumes the ground normal is a unit vector, but as far as I’m aware, that’s true for all the normals Unity gives you.)
Another issue is that if the player stands motionless on a slope, gravity will cause them to slowly slide down it — because the movement from gravity will be projected onto the slope, and unlike flat ground, the result is no longer zero. For conscious actors only, I counter this by adding the opposite factor to the player’s velocity as part of adding in their walking speed. This matches how the real world works, to some extent: when you’re standing on a hill, you’re exerting some small amount of effort just to stay in place.
(Note that slope resistance is not the same as friction. Okay, yes, in the real world, virtually all resistance to movement happens as a result of friction, but bracing yourself against the ground isn’t the same as being passively resisted.)
From here there are a lot of things you can do, depending on how you think slopes should be handled. You could make the player unable to walk up slopes that are too steep. You could make walking down a slope faster than walking up it. You could make jumping go along the ground normal, rather than straight up. You could raise the player’s max allowed speed while running downhill. Whatever you want, really. Armed with a normal and awareness of dot products, you can do whatever you want.
But first you might want to fix a few aggravating side effects.
I don’t know if there’s a better name for this. I rarely even see anyone talk about it, which surprises me; it seems like it should be a very common problem.
The problem is: if the player runs up a slope which then abruptly changes to flat ground, their momentum will carry them into the air. For very fast players going off the top of very steep slopes, this makes sense, but it becomes visible even for relatively gentle slopes. It was a mild nightmare in the original release of our game Lunar Depot 38, which has very “rough” ground made up of lots of shallow slopes — so the player is very frequently slightly off the ground, which meant they couldn’t jump, for seemingly no reason. (I even had code to fix this, but I disabled it because of a silly visual side effect that I never got around to fixing.)
Anyway! The reason this is a problem is that game protagonists are generally not boxes sliding around — they have legs. We don’t go flying off the top of real-world hilltops because we put our foot down until it touches the ground.
Simulating this footfall is surprisingly fiddly to get right, especially with someone else’s physics engine. It’s made somewhat easier by Cast, which casts the entire hitbox — no matter what shape it is — in a particular direction, as if it had moved, and tells you all the hypothetical collisions in order.
So I cast the player in the direction of gravity by some distance. If the cast hits something solid with a ground-like collision normal, then the player must be close to the ground, and I move them down to touch it (and set that ground as the new ground normal).
There are some wrinkles.
Wrinkle 1: I only want to do this if the player is off the ground now, but was on the ground last frame, and is not deliberately moving upwards. That latter condition means I want to skip this logic if the player jumps, for example, but also if the player is thrust upwards by a spring or abducted by a UFO or whatever. As long as external code goes through some interface and doesn’t mess with the player’s velocity directly, that shouldn’t be too hard to track.
Wrinkle 2: When does this logic run? It needs to happen after the player moves, which means after a Unity physics pass… but there’s no callback for that point in time. I ended up running it at the beginning of FixedUpdateand the beginning of Update — since I definitely want to do it before rendering happens! That means it’ll sometimes happen twice between physics updates. (I could carefully juggle a flag to skip the second run, but I… didn’t do that. Yet?)
Wrinkle 3: I can’t move the player with MovePosition! Remember, MovePositionschedules a movement, it doesn’t actually perform one; that means if it’s called twice before the physics pass, the first call is effectively ignored. I can’t easily combine the drop with the player’s regular movement, for various fiddly reasons. I ended up doing it “by hand” using transform.Translate, which I think was the “old way” to do manual movement before MovePosition existed. I’m not totally sure if it activates triggers? For that matter, I’m not sure it even notices collisions — but since I did a full-body Cast, there shouldn’t be any anyway.
Wrinkle 4: What, exactly, is “some distance”? I’ve yet to find a satisfying answer for this. It seems like it ought to be based on the player’s current speed and the slope of the ground they’re moving along, but every time I’ve done that math, I’ve gotten totally ludicrous answers that sometimes exceed the size of a tile. But maybe that’s not wrong? Play around, I guess, and think about when the effect should “break” and the player should go flying off the top of a hill.
Wrinkle 5: It’s possible that the player will launch off a slope, hit something, and then be adhered to the ground where they wouldn’t have hit it. I don’t much like this edge case, but I don’t see a way around it either.
This problem is surprisingly awkward for how simple it sounds, and the solution isn’t entirely satisfying. Oh, well; the results are much nicer than the solution. As an added bonus, this also fixes occasional problems with running down a hill and becoming detached from the ground due to precision issues or whathaveyou.
It took me ages just to figure out how to define one-way platforms. Only block when the player is moving downwards? Nope. Only block when the player is above the platform? Nuh-uh.
Well, okay, yes, those approaches might work for convex players and flat platforms. But what about… sloped, one-way platforms? There’s no reason you shouldn’t be able to have those. If Super Mario World can do it, surely Unity can do it almost 30 years later.
The trick is, again, to look at the collision normal. If it faces away from gravity, the player is hitting a ground-like surface, so the platform should block them. Otherwise (or if the player overlaps the platform), it shouldn’t.
Here’s the catch: Unity doesn’t have conditional collision. I can’t decide, on the fly, whether a collision should block or not. In fact, I think that by the time I get a callback like OnCollisionEnter2D, the physics pass is already over.
I could go the other way and use triggers (which are non-blocking), but then I have the opposite problem: I can’t stop the player on the fly. I could move them back to where they hit the trigger, but I envision all kinds of problems as a result. What if they were moving fast enough to activate something on the other side of the platform? What if something else moved to where I’m trying to shove them back to in the meantime? How does this interact with ground detection and listing contacts, which would rightly ignore a trigger as non-blocking?
I beat my head against this for a while, but the inability to respond to collision conditionally was a huge roadblock. It’s all the more infuriating a problem, because Unity ships with a one-way platform modifier thing. Unfortunately, it seems to have been implemented by someone who has never played a platformer. It’s literally one-way — the player is only allowed to move straight upwards through it, not in from the sides. It also tries to block the player if they’re moving downwards while inside the platform, which invokes clumsy rejection behavior. And this all seems to be built into the physics engine itself somehow, so I can’t simply copy whatever they did.
Eventually, I settled on the following. After calculating attempted movement (including sliding), just at the end of FixedUpdate, I do a Cast along the movement vector. I’m not thrilled about having to duplicate the physics engine’s own work, but I do filter to only things on a “one-way platform” physics layer, which should at least help. For each object the cast hits, I use Physics2D.IgnoreCollision to either ignore or un-ignore the collision between the player and the platform, depending on whether the collision was ground-like or not.
(A lot of people suggested turning off collision between layers, but that can’t possibly work — the player might be standing on one platform while inside another, and anyway, this should work for all actors!)
Again, wrinkles! But fewer this time. Actually, maybe just one: handling the case where the player already overlaps the platform. I can’t just check for that with e.g. OverlapCollider, because that doesn’t distinguish between overlapping and merely touching.
I came up with a fairly simple fix: if I was going to un-ignore the collision (i.e. make the platform block), and the cast distance is reported as zero (either already touching or overlapping), I simply do nothing instead. If I’m standing on the platform, I must have already set it blocking when I was approaching it from the top anyway; if I’m overlapping it, I must have already set it non-blocking to get here in the first place.
I can imagine a few cases where this might go wrong. Moving platforms, especially, are going to cause some interesting issues. But this is the best I can do with what I know, and it seems to work well enough so far.
Oh, and our player can deliberately drop down through platforms, which was easy enough to implement; I just decide the platform is always passable while some button is held down.
I haven’t gotten to this yet! Oh boy, can’t wait. I implemented it in LÖVE, but my way was hilariously invasive; I’m hoping that having a physics engine that supports a handwaved “this pushes that” will help. Of course, you also have to worry about sticking to platforms, for which the recommended solution is apparently to parent the cargo to the platform, which sounds goofy to me? I guess I’ll find out when I throw myself at it later.
I ended up with a fairly pleasant-feeling system that supports slopes and one-way platforms and whatnot, with all the same pieces as I came up with for LÖVE. The code somehow ended up as less of a mess, too, but it probably helps that I’ve been down this rabbit hole once before and kinda knew what I was aiming for this time.
Sorry that I don’t have a big block of code for you to copy-paste into your project. I don’t think there are nearly enough narrative discussions of these fundamentals, though, so hopefully this is useful to someone. If not, well, look forward to ✨ my book, that I am writing ✨!
Maybe something about level design. In relation to a vertical shmup since I’m working on one of those.
I’ve been thinking about level design a lot lately, seeing as how I’ve started… designing levels. Shmups are probably the genre I’m the worst at, but perhaps some general principles will apply universally.
And speaking of general principles, that’s something I’ve been thinking about too.
I’ve been struggling to create a more expansive tileset for a platformer, due to two general problems: figuring out what I want to show, and figuring out how to show it with a limited size and palette. I’ve been browsing through a lot of pixel art from games I remember fondly in the hopes of finding some inspiration, but so far all I’ve done is very nearly copy a dirt tile someone submitted to my potluck project.
Recently I realized that I might have been going about looking for inspiration all wrong. I’ve been sifting through stuff in the hopes of finding something that would create some flash of enlightenment, but so far that aimless tourism has only found me a thing or two to copy.
I don’t want to copy a small chunk of the final product; I want to understand the underlying ideas that led the artist to create what they did in the first place. Or, no, that’s not quite right either. I don’t want someone else’s ideas; I want to identify what I like, figure out why I like it, and turn that into some kinda of general design idea. Find the underlying themes that appeal to me and figure out some principles that I could apply. You know, examine stuff critically.
I haven’t had time to take a deeper look at pixel art this way, so I’ll try it right now with level design. Here, then, are some levels from various games that stand out to me for whatever reason; the feelings they evoke when I think about them; and my best effort at unearthing some design principles from those feelings.
I’m surprising myself by picking Refueling Base. I would’ve expected myself to pick MAP08, Tricks and Traps, for its collection of uniquely bizarre puzzles and mechanisms. Or MAP13, Downtown, the map that had me convinced (erroneously) that Doom levels supported multi-story structures. Or at least MAP08, The Pit, which stands out for the unique way it feels like a plunge into enemy territory.
(Curiously, those other three maps are all Sandy Petersen’s sole work. Refueling Base was started by Tom Hall in the original Doom days, then finished by Sandy for Doom II.)
But Refueling Base is the level I have the most visceral reaction to: it terrifies me.
See, I got into Doom II through my dad, who played it on and off sometimes. My dad wasn’t an expert gamer or anything, but as a ten-year-old, I assumed he was. I watched him play Refueling Base one night. He died. Again, and again, over and over. I don’t even have very strong memories of his particular attempts, but watching my parent be swiftly and repeatedly defeated — at a time when I still somewhat revered parents — left enough of an impression that hearing the level music still makes my skin crawl.
This may seem strange to bring up as a first example in a post about level design, but I don’t think it would have impressed on me quite so much if the level weren’t designed the way it is. (It’s just a video game, of course, and since then I’ve successfully beaten it from a pistol start myself. But wow, little kid fears sure do linger.)
The one thing that most defines the map has to be its interconnected layout. Almost every major area (of which there are at least half a dozen) has at least three exits. Not only are you rarely faced with a dead end, but you’ll almost always have a choice of where to go next, and that choice will lead into more choices.
This hugely informs the early combat. Many areas near the beginning are simply adjacent with no doors between them, so it’s easy for monsters to start swarming in from all directions. It’s very easy to feel overwhelmed by an endless horde; no matter where you run, they just seem to keep coming. (In fact, Refueling Base has the most monsters of any map in the game by far: 279. The runner up is the preceding map at 238.) Compounding this effect is the relatively scant ammo and health in the early parts of the map; getting very far from a pistol start is an uphill battle.
The connections between rooms also yield numerous possible routes through the map, as well as several possible ways to approach any given room. Some of the connections are secrets, which usually connect the “backs” of two rooms. Clearing out one room thus rewards you with a sneaky way into another room that puts you behind all the monsters.
In fact, the map rewards you for exploring it in general.
Well, okay. It might be more accurate to say that that map punishes you for not exploring it. From a pistol start, the map is surprisingly difficult — the early areas offer rather little health and ammo, and your best chance of success is a very specific route that collects weapons as quickly as possible. Many of the most precious items are squirrelled away in (numerous!) secrets, and you’ll have an especially tough time if you don’t find any of them — though they tend to be telegraphed.
One particularly nasty surprise is in the area shown above, which has three small exits at the back. Entering or leaving via any of those exits will open one of the capsule-shaped pillars, revealing even more monsters. A couple of those are pain elementals, monsters which attack by spawning another monster and shooting it at you — not something you want to be facing with the starting pistol.
But nothing about the level indicates this, so you have to make the association the hard way, probably after making several mad dashes looking for cover. My successful attempt avoided this whole area entirely until I’d found some more impressive firepower. It’s fascinating to me, because it’s a fairly unique effect that doesn’t make any kind of realistic sense, yet it’s still built out of familiar level mechanics: walk through an area and something opens up. Almost like 2D sidescroller design logic applied to a 3D space. I really like it, and wish I saw more of it. So maybe that’s a more interesting design idea: don’t be afraid to do something weird only once, as long as it’s built out of familiar pieces so the player has a chance to make sense of it.
A similarly oddball effect is hidden in a “barracks” area, visible on the far right of the map. A secret door leads to a short U-shaped hallway to a marble skull door, which is themed nothing like the rest of the room. Opening it seems to lead back into the room you were just in, but walking through the doorway teleports you to a back entrance to the boss fight at the end of the level.
It sounds so bizarre, but the telegraphing makes it seem very natural; if anything, the “oh, I get it!” moment overrides the weirdness. It stops being something random and becomes something consciously designed. I believe that this might have been built by someone, even if there’s no sensible reason to have built it.
In fact, that single weird teleporter is exactly the kind of thing I’d like to be better at building. It could’ve been just a plain teleporter pad, but instead it’s a strange thing that adds a lot of texture to the level and makes it much more memorable. I don’t know how to even begin to have ideas like that. Maybe it’s as simple as looking at mundane parts of a level and wondering: what could I do with this instead?
I think a big problem I have is limiting myself to the expected and sensible, to the point that I don’t even consider more outlandish ideas. I can’t shake that habit simply by bolding some text in a blog post, but maybe it would help to keep this in mind: you can probably get away with anything, as long as you justify it somehow. Even “justify” here is too strong a word; it takes only the slightest nod to make an arbitrary behavior feel like part of a world. Why does picking up a tiny glowing knight helmet give you 1% armor in Doom? Does anyone care? Have you even thought about it before? It’s green and looks like armor; the bigger armor pickup is also green; yep, checks out.
On the other hand, the map as a whole ends up feeling very disorienting. There’s no shortage of landmarks, but every space is distinct in both texture and shape, so everything feels like a landmark. No one part of the map feels particularly central; there are a few candidates, but they neighbor other equally grand areas with just as many exits. It’s hard to get truly lost, but it’s also hard to feel like you have a solid grasp of where everything is. The space itself doesn’t make much sense, even though small chunks of it do. Of course, given that the Hellish parts of Doom were all just very weird overall, this is pretty fitting.
This sort of design fascinates me, because the way it feels to play is so different from the way it looks as a mapper with God Vision. Looking at the overhead map, I can identify all the familiar places easily enough, but I don’t know how to feel the way the map feels to play; it just looks like some rooms with doors between them. Yet I can see screenshots and have a sense of how “deep” in the level they are, how difficult they are to reach, whether I want to visit or avoid them. The lesson here might be that most of the interesting flavor of the map isn’t actually contained within the overhead view; it’s in the use of height and texture and interaction.
I realize as I describe all of this that I’m really just describing different kinds of contrast. If I know one thing about creative work (and I do, I only know one thing), it’s that effectively managing contrast is super duper important.
And it appears here in spades! A brightly-lit, outdoor, wide-open round room is only a short jog away from a dark, cramped room full of right angles and alcoves. A wide straight hallway near the beginning is directly across from a short, curvy, organic hallway. Most of the monsters in the map are small fry, but a couple stronger critters are sprinkled here and there, and then the exit is guarded by the toughest monster in the game. Some of the connections between rooms are simple doors; others are bizarre secret corridors or unnatural twisty passages.
You could even argue that the map has too much contrast, that it starts to lose cohesion. But if anything, I think this is one of the more cohesive maps in the first third of the game; many of the earlier maps aren’t so much places as they are concepts. This one feels distinctly like it could be something. The theming is all over the place, but enough of the parts seem deliberate.
I hadn’t even thought about it until I sat down to write this post, but since this is a “refueling base”, I suppose those outdoor capsules (which contain green slime, inset into the floor) could be the fuel tanks! I already referred to that dark techy area as “barracks”. Elsewhere is a rather large barren room, which might be where the vehicles in need of refueling are parked? Or is this just my imagination, and none of it was intended this way?
It doesn’t really matter either way, because even in this abstract world of ambiguity and vague hints, all of those rooms still feel like a place. I don’t have to know what the place is for it to look internally consistent.
I’m hesitant to say every game should have the loose design sense of Doom II, but it might be worth keeping in mind that anything can be a believable world as long as it looks consciously designed. And I’d say this applies even for natural spaces — we frequently treat real-world nature as though it were “designed”, just with a different aesthetic sense.
Okay, okay. I’m sure I could clumsily ramble about Doom forever, but I do that enough as it is. Other people have plenty to say if you’re interested.
I do want to stick in one final comment about MAP13, Downtown, while I’m talking about theming. I’ve seen a few people rag on it for being “just a box” with a lot of ideas sprinkled around — the map is basically a grid of skyscrapers, where each building has a different little mini encounter inside. And I think that’s really cool, because those encounters are arranged in a way that very strongly reinforces the theme of the level, of what this place is supposed to be. It doesn’t play quite like anything else in the game, simply because it was designed around a shape for flavor reasons. Weird physical constraints can do interesting things to level design.
I love Braid. If you’re not familiar (!), it’s a platformer where you have the ability to rewind time — whenever you want, for as long as you want, all the way back to when you entered the level.
The game starts in world 2, where you do fairly standard platforming and use the rewind ability to do some finnicky jumps with minimal frustration. It gets more interesting in world 3 with the addition of glowing green objects, which aren’t affected by the reversal of time.
And then there’s world 4, “Time and Place”. I love world 4, so much. It’s unlike anything I’ve ever seen in any other game, and it’s so simple yet so clever.
The premise is this: for everything except you, time moves forwards as you move right, and backwards as you move left.
This has some weird implications, which all come together in the final level of the world, Fickle Companion. It’s so named because you have to use one (single-use) key to open three doors, but that key is very easy to lose.
Say you pick up the key and walk to the right with it. Time continues forwards for the key, so it stays with you as expected. Now you climb a ladder. Time is frozen since you aren’t moving horizontally, but the key stays with you anyway. Now you walk to the left. Oops — the key follows its own path backwards in time, going down the ladder and back along the path you carried it in the first place. You can’t fix this by walking to the right again, because that will simply advance time normally for the key; since you’re no longer holding it, it will simply fall to the ground and stay there.
You can see how this might be a problem in the screenshot above (where you get the key earlier in the level, to the left). You can climb the first ladder, but to get to the door, you have to walk left to get to the second ladder, which will reverse the key back down to the ground.
The solution is in the cannon in the upper right, which spits out a Goomba-like critter. It has the timeproof green glow, so the critters it spits out have the same green glow — making them immune to both your time reversal power and to the effect your movement has on time. What you have to do is get one of the critters to pick up the key and carry it leftwards for you. Once you have the puzzle piece, you have to rewind time and do it again elsewhere. (Or, more likely, the other way around; this next section acts as a decent hint for how to do the earlier section.)
It’s hard to convey how bizarre this is in just text. If you haven’t played Braid, it’s absolutely worth it just for this one world, this one level.
And it gets even better, slash more ridiculous: there’s a super duper secret hidden very cleverly in this level. Reaching it involves bouncing twice off of critters; solving the puzzle hidden there involves bouncing the critters off of you. It’s ludicrous and perhaps a bit too tricky, but very clever. Best of all, it’s something that an enterprising player might just think to do on a whim — hey, this is possible here, I wonder what happens if I try it. And the game rewards the player for trying something creative! (Ironically, it’s most rewarding to have a clever idea when it turns out the designer already had the same idea.)
What can I take away from this? Hm.
Well, the underlying idea of linking time with position is pretty novel, but getting to it may not be all that hard: just combine different concepts and see what happens.
A similar principle is to apply a general concept to everything and see what happens. This is the first sighting of a timeproof wandering critter; previously timeproofing had only been seen on keys, doors, puzzle pieces, and stationary monsters. Later it even applies to Tim himself in special circumstances.
The use of timeproofing on puzzle pieces is especially interesting, because the puzzle pieces — despite being collectibles that animate moving into the UI when you get them — are also affected by time. If the pieces in this level weren’t timeproof, then as soon as you collected one and moved left to leave its alcove, time would move backwards and the puzzle piece would reverse out of the UI and right back into the world.
Along similar lines, the music and animated background are also subject to the flow of time. It’s obvious enough that the music plays backwards when you rewind time, but in world 4, the music only plays at all while you’re moving. It’s a fantastic effect that makes the whole world feel as weird and jerky as it really is under these rules. It drives the concept home instantly, and it makes your weird influence over time feel all the more significant and far-reaching. I love when games weave all the elements of the game into the gameplaylike this, even (especially?) for the sake of a single oddball level.
Admittedly, this is all about gameplay or puzzle mechanics, not so much level design. What I like about the level itself is how simple and straightforward it is: it contains exactly as much as it needs to, yet still invites trying the wrong thing first, which immediately teaches the player why it won’t work. And it’s something that feels like it ought to work, except that the rules of the game get in the way just enough. This makes for my favorite kind of puzzle, the type where you feel like you’ve tried everything and it must be impossible — until you realize the creative combination of things you haven’t tried yet. I’m talking about puzzles again, oops; I guess the general level design equivalent of this is that players tend to try the first thing they see first, so if you put required parts later, players will be more likely to see optional parts.
I think that’s all I’ve got for this one puzzle room. I do want to say (again) that I love both endings of Braid. The normal ending weaves together the game mechanics and (admittedly loose) plot in a way that gave me chills when I first saw it; the secret ending completely changes both how the ending plays and how you might interpret the finale, all by making only the slightest changes to the level.
I love Portal. I blazed through the game in a couple hours the night it came out. I’d seen the trailer and instantly grasped the concept, so the very slow and gentle learning curve was actually a bit frustrating for me; I just wanted to portal around a big playground, and I finally got to do that in the six “serious” tests towards the end, 13 through 18.
Valve threw an interesting curveball with these six maps. As well as being more complete puzzles by themselves, Valve added “challenges” requiring that they be done with as few portals, time, or steps as possible. I only bothered with the portal challenges — time and steps seemed less about puzzle-solving and more about twitchy reflexes — and within them I found buried an extra layer of puzzles. All of the minimum portal requirements were only possible if you found an alternative solution to the map: skipping part of it, making do with only one cube instead of two, etc. But Valve offered no hints, only a target number. It was a clever way to make me think harder about familiar areas.
Alongside the challenges were “advanced” maps, and these blew me away. They were six maps identical in layout to the last six test chambers, but with a simple added twist that completely changed how you had to approach them. Test 13 has two buttons with two boxes to place on them; the advanced version removes a box and also changes the floor to lava. Test 14 is a live fire course with turrets you have to knock over; the advanced version puts them all in impenetrable cages. Test 17 is based around making extensive use of a single cube; the advanced version changes it to a ball.
But the one that sticks out the most to me is test 18, a potpourri of everything you’ve learned so far. The beginning part has you cross several large pits of toxic sludge by portaling from the ceilings; the advanced version simply changes the ceilings to unportalable metal. It seems you’re completely stuck after only the first jump, unless you happen to catch a glimpse of the portalable floor you pass over in mid-flight. Or you might remember from the regular version of the map that the floor was portalable there, since you used it to progress further. Either way, you have to fire a portal in midair in a way you’ve never had to do before, and the result feels very cool, like you’ve defeated a puzzle that was intended to be unsolvable. All in a level that was fairly easy the first time around, and has been modified only slightly.
I’m not sure where I’m going with this. I could say it’s good to make the player feel clever, but that feels wishy-washy. What I really appreciated about the advanced tests is that they exploited inklings of ideas I’d started to have when playing through the regular game; they encouraged me to take the spark of inspiration this game mechanic gave me and run with it.
So I suppose the better underlying principle here — the most important principle in level design, in any creative work — is to latch onto what gets you fired up and run with it. I am absolutely certain that the level designers for this game loved the portal concept as much as I do, they explored it thoroughly, and they felt compelled to fit their wilder puzzle ideas in somehow.
More of that. Find the stuff that feels like it’s going to burst out of your head, and let it burst.
I mention this because Portal reminded me of it. The regular and advanced maps in Portal are reminiscent of parallel worlds or duality or whatever you want to call the theme. I extremely dig that theme, and it shows up in Chip’s Challenge in an unexpected way.
Totally Fair is a wide open level with a little maze walled off in one corner. The maze contains a monster called a “teeth”, which follows Chip at a slightly slower speed. (The second teeth, here shown facing upwards, starts outside the maze but followed me into it when I took this screenshot.)
The goal is to lure the teeth into standing on the brown button on the right side. If anything moves into a “trap” tile (the larger brown recesses at the bottom), it cannot move out of that tile until/unless something steps on the corresponding brown button. So there’s not much room for error in maneuvering the teeth; if it falls in the water up top, it’ll die, and if it touches the traps at the bottom, it’ll be stuck permanently.
The reason you need the brown button pressed is to acquire the chips on the far right edge of the level.
The gray recesses turn into walls after being stepped on, so once you grab a chip, the only way out is through the force floors and ice that will send you onto the trap. If you haven’t maneuvered the teeth onto the button beforehand, you’ll be trapped there.
Doesn’t seem like a huge deal, since you can go see exactly how the maze is shaped and move the teeth into position fairly easily. But you see, here is the beginning of Totally Fair.
The gray recess leads up into the maze area, so you can only enter it once. A force floor in the upper right lets you exit it.
Totally Unfair is exactly identical, except the second teeth has been removed, and the entrance to the maze looks like this.
You can’t get into the maze area. You can’t even see the maze; it’s too far away from the wall. You have to position the teeth completely blind. In fact, if you take a single step to the left from here, you’ll have already dumped the teeth into the water and rendered the level impossible.
The hint tile will tell you to “Remember sjum”, where SJUM is the password to get back to Totally Fair. So you have to learn that level well enough to recreate the same effect without being able to see your progress.
It’s not impossible, and it’s not a “make a map” faux puzzle. A few scattered wall blocks near the chips, outside the maze area, are arranged exactly where the edges of the maze are. Once you notice that, all you have to do is walk up and down a few times, waiting a moment each time to make sure the teeth has caught up with you.
So in a sense, Totally Unfair is the advanced chamber version of Totally Fair. It makes a very minor change that force you to approach the whole level completely differently, using knowledge gleaned from your first attempt.
And crucially, it’s an actual puzzle! A lot of later Chip’s Challenge levels rely heavily on map-drawing, timing, tedium, or outright luck. (Consider, if you will, Blobdance.) The Totally Fair + Totally Unfair pairing requires a little ingenuity unlike anything else in the game, and the solution is something more than just combinations of existing game mechanics. There’s something very interesting about that hint in the walls, a hint you’d have no reason to pick up on when playing through the first level. I wish I knew how to verbalize it better.
Anyway, enough puzzle games; let’s get back to regular ol’ level design.
Link’s Awakening was my first Zelda (and only Zelda for a long time), which made for a slightly confusing introduction to the series — what on earth is a Zelda and why doesn’t it appear in the game?
The whole game is a blur of curiosities and interesting little special cases. It’s fabulously well put together, especially for a Game Boy game, and the dungeons in particular are fascinating microcosms of design. I never really appreciated it before, but looking at the full maps, I’m struck by how each dungeon has several large areas neatly sliced into individual screens.
Much like with Doom II, I surprise myself by picking Eagle’s Tower as the most notable part of the game. The dungeon isn’t that interesting within the overall context of the game; it gives you only the mirror shield, possibly the least interesting item in the game, second only to the power bracelet upgrade from the previous dungeon. The dungeon itself is fairly long, full of traps, and overflowing with crystal switches and toggle blocks, making it possibly the most frustrating of the set. Getting to it involves spending some excellent quality time with a flying rooster, but you don’t really do anything — mostly you just make your way through nondescript caves and mountaintops.
Having now thoroughly dunked on it, I’ll tell you what makes it stand out: the player changes the shape of the dungeon.
That’s something I like a lot about Doom, as well, but it’s much more dramatic in Eagle’s Tower. As you might expect, the dungeon is shaped like a tower, where each floor is on a 4×4 grid. The top floor, 4F, is a small 2×2 block of rooms in the middle — but one of those rooms is the boss door, and there’s no way to get to that floor.
(Well, sort of. The “down” stairs in the upper-right of 3F actually lead up to 4F, but the connection is bogus and puts you in a wall, and both of the upper middle rooms are unreachable during normal gameplay.)
The primary objective of the dungeon is to smash four support columns on 2F by throwing a huge iron ball at them, which causes 4F to crash down into the middle of 3F.
Even the map on the pause screen updates to reflect this. In every meaningful sense, you, the player, have fundamentally reconfigured the shape of this dungeon.
I love this. It feels like I have some impact on the world, that I came along and did something much more significant than mere game mechanics ought to allow. I saw that the tower was unsolvable as designed, so I fixed it.
It’s clear that the game engine supports rearranging screens arbitrarily — consider the Wind Fish’s Egg — but this is s wonderfully clever and subtle use of that. Let the player feel like they have an impact on the world.
This is getting excessively long so I’m gonna cut it here. Some other things I thought of but don’t know how to say more than a paragraph about:
Super Mario Land 2: Six Golden Coins has a lot of levels with completely unique themes, backed by very simple tilesets but enhanced by interesting one-off obstacles and enemies. I don’t even know how to pick a most interesting one. Maybe just play the game, or at least peruse the maps.
This post about density of detail in Team Fortress 2 is really good so just read that I guess. It’s really about careful balance of contrast again, but through the lens of using contrasting amounts of detail to draw the player’s attention, while still carrying a simple theme through less detailed areas.
Metroid Prime is pretty interesting in a lot of ways, but I mostly laugh at how they spaced rooms out with long twisty hallways to improve load times — yet I never really thought about it because they all feel like they belong in the game.
One thing I really appreciate is level design that hints at a story, that shows me a world that exists persistently, that convinces me this space exists for some reason other than as a gauntlet for me as a player. But it seems what comes first to my mind is level design that’s clever or quirky, which probably says a lot about me. Maybe the original Fallouts are a good place to look for that sort of detail.
Conversely, it sticks out like a sore thumb when a game tries to railroad me into experiencing the game As The Designer Intended. Games are interactive, so the more input the player can give, the better — and this can be as simple as deciding to avoid rather than confront enemies, or deciding to run rather than walk.
I think that’s all I’ve got in me at the moment. Clearly I need to meditate on this a lot more, but I hope some of this was inspiring in some way!
Building the technology powering the best consumer email inbox in the world is no easy task. When you start on such a journey, it is important to consider how to deliver such an experience to the users. After all, any consumer feature we build can only make a difference after it is delivered to everyone via the tech pipeline.
As we began building out the new version of Yahoo Mail, we wanted to ensure that our internal developer productivity would not be hindered by how our pipelines work. Keeping this in mind, we identified the following principles as most important while designing the delivery pipeline for the new Yahoo Mail experience:
Product updates are pushed at regular intervals
Releases are stable
Builds are not blocked by irrational test failures
Developers are notified of code pushes
Product updates are pushed at regular intervals
We ensure that our engineers can push any code changes to all Mail users everyday, with the ability to push multiple times a day, if necessary or desired. This is possible because of the time we spent building a solid testing infrastructure, which continues to evolve as we scale to new users and add new features to the product. Every one of our builds runs 10,000+ unit tests and 5,000+ integration tests on various combinations of operating systems and browsers. It is important to push product updates regularly as it allows all our users to get the best Mail experience possible.
Releases are stable
Every code release starts with the company’s internal audience first, where all our employees get to try out the latest changes before they go out to production. This begins with our alpha and beta environments that our Mail engineers use by default. Our build then goes out to the canary environment, which is a small subset of production users, before making it to all users. This gives us the ability to analyze quality metrics on internal and canary servers before rolling the build out to 100% of users in production. Once we go through this process, the code pushed to all our users is thoroughly baked and tested.
Builds are not blocked by irrational test failures
Running tests using web drivers on multiple browsers, as is standard when testing frontend code, comes with the problem of tests irrationally failing. As part the Yahoo Mail continuous delivery pipeline, we employ various novel strategies to recover from such failures. One such strategy is recording the data related to failed tests in the first pass of a build, and then rerunning only the failed tests in the subsequent passes. This is achieved by creating a metadata file that stores all our build-related information. As part of this process, a new bundle is created with a new set of code changes. Once a bundle is created with build metadata information, the same build job can be rerun multiple times such that subsequent reruns would only run the failing tests. This significantly improves rerun times and eliminates the chances of build detentions introduced by irrational test failures. The recorded test information is analyzed independently to understand the pattern of failing tests. This helps us in improving the stability of those intermittently failing tests.
Developers are notified of code pushes
Our build and deployment pipelines collect data related to all the authors contributing to any release through code commits or by merging various pull requests. This enables the build pipeline to send out email notifications to all our Mail developers as their code flows through each environment in our build pipeline (alpha, beta, canary, and production). With this ability, developers are well aware of where their code is in the pipeline and can test their changes as needed.
We have also created a pipeline to deploy major code fixes directly to production. This is needed even after the existence of tens of thousands of tests and multitudes of checks. Every now and then, a bug may make its way into production. For such instances, we have hotfixes that are very useful. These are code patches that we quickly deploy on top of production code to address critical issues impacting large sets of users.
If we find any issues in production, we do our best to minimize the impact on users by swiftly utilizing rollbacks, ensuring there is zero to minimal impact time. In order to do rollbacks, we maintain lists of all the versions pushed to production along with their release bundles and change logs. If needed, we pick the stable version that was previously pushed to production and deploy it directly on all the machines running our production instance.
As part of our continuous delivery efforts, we have also developed a concept we call heartbeat pushes. Heartbeat pushes are notifications we send users to refresh their browsers when we issue important builds that they should immediately adopt. These can include bug fixes, product updates, or new features. Heartbeat allows us to dynamically update the latest version of Yahoo Mail when we see that a user’s current version needs to be updated.
Yahoo Mail Continuous Delivery Flow
In building the new Yahoo Mail experience, we knew that we needed to revamp from the ground up, starting with our continuous integration and delivery pipeline. The guiding principles of our new, forward-thinking infrastructure allow us to deliver new features and code fixes at a very high launch velocity and ensure that our users are always getting the latest and greatest Yahoo Mail experience.
At this year’s TechCrunch Disrupt NY hackathon, one team presented BackMap, a haptic feedback system which helps visually impaired people to navigate cities and venues. It is assisted by a Raspberry Pi and integrated into a backpack.
Good vibrations with BackMap
The team, including Shashank Sharma, wrote an iOS phone app in Swift, Apple’s open-source programming language. To convert between addresses and geolocations, they used the Esri APIs offered by PubNub. So far, so standard. However, they then configured their BackMap setup so that the user can input their destination via the app, and then follow the route without having to look at a screen or listen to directions. Instead, vibrating motors have been integrated into the straps of a backpack and hooked up to a Raspberry Pi. Whenever the user needs to turn left or right, the Pi makes the respective motor vibrate.
Disrupt NY 2017 Hackathon presentations filmed live on May 15th, 2017. Preceding the Disrupt Conference is Hackathon weekend on May 13-14, where developers and engineers descend from all over the world to take part in a 24-hour hacking endurance test.
BackMap can also be adapted for indoor navigation by receiving signals from beacons. This could be used to direct users to toilet facilities or exhibition booths at conferences. The team hopes to upgrade the BackMap device to use a wristband format in the future.
Here at Pi Towers, we are always glad to see Pi builds for people with disabilities: we’ve seen Sanskriti and Aman’s Braille teacher Mudra, the audio e-reader Valdema by Finnish non-profit Kolibre, and Myrijam and Paul’s award-winning, eye-movement-controlled wheelchair, to name but a few.
Our mission is to bring the power of coding and digital making to everyone, and we are lucky to be part of a diverse community of makers and educators who have often worked proactively to make events and resources accessible to as many people as possible. There is, for example, the autism- and Tourette’s syndrome-friendly South London Raspberry Jam, organised by Femi Owolade-Coombes and his mum Grace. The Raspberry VI website is a portal to all things Pi for visually impaired and blind people. Deaf digital makers may find Jim Roberts’ video tutorials, which are signed in ASL, useful. And anyone can contribute subtitles in any language to our YouTube channel.
If you create or use accessible tutorials, or run a Jam, Code Club, or CoderDojo that is designed to be friendly to people who are neuroatypical or have a disability, let us know how to find your resource or event in the comments!
The Hungry Worm Clan was building a website for a craftsman who made custom farming tools. Young master Zjing was reviewing the code of their three developers.
“I do not understand the purpose of the LatestSellByDate property in your shopping cart’s PurchaseItem,” she said to the three. “Shovels and rakes do not expire.”
“That property was requested by the Red Pebble Clan,” replied the first monk. “They are building a system for managing a merchant’s cherry farms, and they plan to use our order-placement service instead of building their own.”
“What?” asked Zjing in disbelief. “Who suggested that?”
“You did,” said the second monk. “For did you not tell two of our clans that the reuse of services was superior to the copying and pasting of code?”
“Yes, but the business needs of your two clans are completely different!” cried Zjing. “Eventually, the cherry purchasers may need options for crate size, refrigerated shipping, and insurance against pests. All of these could have their own rules and calculations!”
“You are worrying about a future that may never come to pass,” countered the third monk. “And even if it does, so what? The more features we implement, the greater the chance that we can support our other clients.”
“Other clients?” asked Zjing.
“Two other Tiny Clans have expressed interest in our services,” said the first monk.
“For unicycle parts and novelty wedding costumes,” said the second monk.
“And I have begun designing a plug-in mechanism to handle unforeseen cases,” said the third monk. “In the end the Temple will save much development time overall.”
Later that week Zjing called a meeting of the Tiny Clans under her tutelage. Dozens of monks and nuns crowded into the dim, stuffy, windowless Hall of Irresistable Somnolence where long presentations were given.*
Most of the benches had already been taken up by unfamiliar villagers—employees, explained Zjing, of the novelty wedding costume shop, who were there to ensure that their requirements would be met. The meeting then began with an extraordinarily dull presentation about tailoring, during which many of the monks and nuns could be seen nodding off.
After the final slide the villagers were excused. When the last of them had gone, Zjing brought forth a lantern from behind the podium, and without a word she set the huge rice paper projection screen on fire. Flames climbed swiftly and spread across the dry ceiling timbers; heat seared the air; smoke billowed forth; monks coughed or cried out; the fire alarm clanged; then somewhere overhead the sprinkers came to life and began gushing water ineffectively on the scene of pandemonium below. It was only then—as the occupants rose to flee in four different directions to the four exit doors—that they discovered that their robes had been swiftly and skillfully sewn to the robes of their neighbors.
* Usually these were mandated by the HR department, and included yearly refresher courses like: “First Aid For Accidental Injuries”, “First Aid For Intentional Injuries”, “How to Choose a Comprehensive Life Insurance Plan”, and “The Importance of Good Workplace Morale.”
Now that the Temple had adopted the Agile Way, its analysts, developers, and testers had been reorganized into many Tiny Clans. Each Tiny Clan had been given the freedom to develop its applications in whatever manner it saw fit.
It was still the task of the masters to review the code of all, though their authority had been much diminished. Thus it was with no great joy that young master Zjing reviewed the code of the new clans.
After the early morning meal, Zjing took a printout to the head monk of the Swooping Falcon Clan.
“You have implemented business logic that is outside your purview,” said Zjing, pointing to the code. “The Nimble Roadrunner Clan is chiefly responsible for this business process. They should provide a library or service for you to consume.”
“Yet they offer neither,” said the head monk. “Copying their code was effortless. Petitioning them for an API would impede our progress and create another external dependency for us to track—thus hindering our progress in the future.”
After the late morning meal, Zjing took her printout to the head nun of the Nimble Roadrunner Clan.
“The Swooping Falcon Clan has duplicated your business logic,” said Zjing, pointing to the code. “You should provide a library or service for them to consume.”
“Yet we ourselves need neither,” said the head nun. “Embedding the logic in our UI was effortless. Extracting and packaging it for external consumption would impede our progress and create another API for us to manage—thus hindering our progress in the future.”
After the midday meal, Zjing set off into the woods to clear her mind.
On the journey out, she saw five wolves surround a stag. The deer, lacking a direction in which to escape, was soon taken down by the swiftest wolf, whereupon the whole pack ate well.
On the journey back, she saw three rabbits nibbling on clover in a wide green clearing. No rabbit let a single minute pass without attempting to chase its fellows away. Indeed, as much time was spent rushing about as eating.
At this sight, the young master was enlightened.
After the evening meal, Zjing stood before a copy of the Agile Manifesto in the Great Hall, pondering. One of the cooks asked what she was so fixated on.
Zjing said: “A change in the Temple’s diet.”
When the cook asked her to explain, Zjing said: “Not even the Patriarchs could teach a fat rabbit to be cunning. Yet if all the greenery sprouted legs and ran, what clever little hunters might the cotton-tails become…”
The collective thoughts of the interwebz
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.