There are games that I end up referring to again and again just because they have certain structures. The problem, the problem is you know it’s sort of like saying you know, it’s sort of like saying, “It’s art class, let’s all check out the Mona Lisa because that’s really great Let’s use that as our reference.” And you can use that as reference to talk about some things but you certainly need to be cautious about giving too much of a template. I tend to point at really simplistic games because you can see the structure more easily. On day one when I teach game design the first thing, the first assignment students get is they’re going to improve the game of hopscotch because hopscotch is a game everyone can see, everyone can understand, everyone can play, everyone can modify, and everyone has problems with it. No one is ever satisfied with it. And it forces you, when you confront a simple game like that, it forces you to think “What is it about this game that really works?” And there are, there are some simple games I go to again and again. Pac-man has so many lessons in it. When I look at that game, when I look back at it, it’s like a miracle that game. Everything in it is just done right and perfectly. And there’s so much insane subtlety in it. Almost any game design principle you can think of about what makes a great game it’s there. And then there’s more there that are hiding underneath. Anyway, so I look at lots of games. And I’m hesitant to present “Here’s a small canon of the world’s great games,” because different people like different things and different things are important in different contexts. I encourage students more to look and realize you know hey there are millions of great things to be found in games all over the place. I try rather to get them to see the good and the bad design that’s like in any game that they might find.