Xard

I suppose the core audience is the console teenagers, they have to design with them in mind or they wont make any money. I guess its not unlike Soderbergh making an Oceans 102 in order to make a Guerrilla Not many "console teenager games" feature infinite ammo for instance Besides, this game is rated M anyway

Well, I don't know about "responsibility". But I know that the chance of having the lead designer answer my questions regarding a game I highly anticipated was one of the main reasons that led me to register here, to begin with. *shrug* Well, responsible only by historical weight given out by Black Isle and Obz other projects

That sounds nice, but how exactly and to what extent do you make weapon choice have an effect on the mission? That seemed to be the case for Blood Money, but in the end, the fiber wire is all you ever needed. Fallout also had a great variety of weapons and ammunition, and in the end, only a handful were really useful and effective enough to use on a regular basis, with almost complete independence of the encounter. Bottom line is, it's very difficult to preserve suspension of disbelief when combining stuff like "superspy skills" and "realistic" aspects such as meaningful weapon choices, ammunition types, etc. Simply because a bullet is a bullet and it'll usually do a number on you. Realism ≠ fun. Yeah, one of the things I liked so much about these boards back then when K2 was in development was how MCA would routinely interact with users and answer questions about the game. I wish we could have that back. I would really like to hear what motivated this design choice. Pehaps not. This is the game that "will change the way you think about RPGs", remember? How did you make that =/= mark? *is jealous* And MCA haven't been posting here since Darth Nuke fiasco though he really should ( apart from that Top Ten thread ages ago ) This time it is his responsibility again. He is Lead Designer on the game and he should follow the lead of his fellow obsidianate J.E Sawyer and David Gaider of Bioware. Heck, he did that during KotOR 2 development. ...not to sound demanding but lack of attention developer's have been showing in here lately... Heck, you just hired Matthew Rorie to do PR and deal with community stuff. Doesn't this fall under that? I've been very hyped and highly anticipating Alpha Protocol. Everything just seemed to strenghten the notion this'll be awesome game with great combat mechanics. Avellone & Mitsoda dream team, skill system inspired by Fallout, awesome character designs and combat system that untill now seemed to hold tons of potential? It's not good feeling when such anticipations are halved due to load of small, ridiculous design decisions this latest preview showcased. Infinite ammo was by far worst of these and huge threat to combat system as I saw it and thus I directed my anger on this.

someone's acting butthurt here It was repoted many times in different sources, even by LA staff themselves. And like I said art was leaked

Whoah, best developer story ever Beautiful

in the mean time could someone PM them to me too? Thanks in advance

*pop culture knowledge check* CRITICAL FAIL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Tam#River_Tam Heretic! C'mon I've only seen couple of episodes of Firefly and that was years ago

Oh wow awesome Dragon Lord Jones That guy is so ridiculously underrated it isn't even funny REM - Losing My Religion

*pop culture knowledge check* CRITICAL FAIL Yeah, so far we've had entirely different info/picture on the game and now suddenly it's been "oh wait this is one big streamlined rollercoaster with silliness cuz it would be boring otherwise" EXACTLY why this infinite ammo deal irked me so bad among few other stupidities (we could drag bodies in Thief for christ's sake, it isn't even option to NOT do so in spy game) Read my big post on the previous page Of course IW would've been better received but then again what difference it would've made between quality comparisons between two titles? Nothing edit: I just realized this is first rave and rant topic I've ever made on game designing. Cool

You're reading too much into "Kill Bill" comment Pid But developer comments are truly needed Unless they succeed in DC30 Diplomacy check rave and rant and petition signing shall continue!

This is my point exactly. IW was first thing to come in my mind too, "oddly" enough

Screenshots show quite many different kinds of weapons etc. and earlier previews doesn't mention anything in style of small weapon arsenal. Nor did I see anything like that in this preview. All other agent games also strenghten the notion. They're full with different weapons. I'd be very thankful if someone (preferably MCA himself ) would come and explain their stance/reasons for these designs. All I can see is ridiculous and unneeded streamlining (something Avellone himself admitted sometimes worrying in that interview) which could be easily fixed

It is long post because I try to elaborate very specifically why this is bad design to developers who might be lurking in this topic as guests as it looks like my initial starting post wasn't specific enough The article mentioned that a specific weapon will have limited ammo, this is probably because it is very powerful. Edit: Just read that you mentioned this. Whoops. Edit: Also, seriously, tl;dr. I'm trying to read through all of it but god damn. "Now unless "special weapons" includes shotguns, AK-47's etc. common weaponry - which I'm sure is not the case - it means such powerful weapons have unlimited ammo. By going common developing principles shotgun should be 1-2 shots killing machine, AK-47 or your other random assault riffle should be lethal by burst of ammo etc. This means limiting ammo for "special weapons" (I hope they're not in style of "plasma cannon") doesn't mean anything because you're able to take out your enemies by your normal weaponry with couple of shots. There's no reason to use these special weapons. Unless they fall for design decision this approach forces them to, namely weakening damage of your common weaponry. With unlimited ammo this means you must spend whole clip on one enemy on average with weapons like AK-47. I've played such games and they completely take the fun away. Anyone who plays FPS's knows nothing is as annoying as guns without any impact or ****."

1) 99 % of games draw from action movies. Yet only small percentage of these feature infinite ammo. Games with realistic combat aren't even numerous enough to mention dozen but realism isn't the point here. Just because something isn't searching for realistic approach doesn' mean it should use stupid one either 2) In RPG's when you take your specialization far enough you can bring your enemies in matter of few seconds. Infinite ammo is self-defeating in here too. It takes one bullet to kill Random Terrorist 01 on high levels and it takes five bullets to kill Random Terrorist 01 in low level. With infinite ammo it doesn't matter at all. If you want to run through game with blazing AK-47 be my guest. Just don't except anyone else in here wants game to boil down into point where one game style and one or few high damage weapon overcomes all others. These kind of things have been always controlled by giving limited amount of ammunition for high end weapons. Alpha Protocol is doing version of this with "special weapons". Now unless "special weapons" includes shotguns, AK-47's etc. common weaponry - which I'm sure is not the case - it means such powerful weapons have unlimited ammo. By going common developing principles shotgun should be 1-2 killing machine, AK-47 or your other random assault riffle should be lethal by burst of ammo etc. This means limiting ammo for "special weapons" (I hope they're not in style of "plasma cannon") doesn't mean anything because you're able to take out your enemies by your normal weaponry with couple of shots. There's no reason to use these special weapons. Unless they fall for design decision this approach forces them to, namely weakening damage of your common weaponry. With unlimited ammo this means you must spend whole clip on one enemy on average with weapons like AK-47. I've played such games and they completely take the fun away. Anyone who plays FPS's knows nothing is as annoying as guns without any impact or ****. I don't want another Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines where you must empty round of .38 in police officers face before he goes down. And it's no reason to have unlimited ammo just because you specialize in certain weapon/weapon type - Fallout (specialization, limited ammo) - Arcanum (specialization, limited ammo) - Bloodlines (specialization, limited ammo) 3) Again unless you use Rambo tactic with constantly shooting such situation shouldn't be too likely. Accurate, short burts with your AK-47 should be enough to bring your enemies down and after fight you could just loot their bodies to recover most of your lost ammunition. You could also buy ammo from the shops. Let's take example from game which has quite bad combat mechanics but it works as example for this point - GTA San Andreas. When you're in middle of gang war trying to conquer new territory for your hood you can be sure there'll be loads of defenders armed with high-end weaponry. If you take approach afore mentioned - aiming, short burts, headshots etc. - it should't be too hard. If you manage to minimize use of the bullets you end up with more bullets than you begin with after looting. However if you take the "let's just shoot until everything is dead" you end up out of ammo for your big guns. Have fun fighting waves of assault rifles and SMG's with your pistol. In infinite ammo design this doesn't mean anything. Find cover and shoot from there to the general direction of enemy. They'll go down eventually 4) This is not survival horror game but this is agent game. Special agents don't take down entire fortresses with their unlimited ammo supply. Rather they use tactics and skill if forced to fight. Not the minigun they nicked from nearby helicopter Metal Gear Solid's are still godfathers of modern "spy" games. Let's use as example the original psone one (as that's the one I'm most familiar with) game. If you get spotted you can be sure you're in for trouble. If you're lucky enough have ammunition and gunpower enough so you can take down first one or two waves of defenders rushing against you with their FAMAS'ses blazing. However this only provides you temporary time of safety during which you must find place to hide in ASAP. Otherwise you'll be eventually gunned down or you run out of ammunition which just postpones inevitable if you're later spotted again and end up under assault. In late game if you've secured for yourself a famas and many clips of ammunition for it you CAN take down the (already determined, I think it 3 or 4 at least on normal difficulty) amount of enemy strike teams send to take you down. Once you've dealt with them all alarm mode eventually goes off as there's no one left to search for you. This approach however results for you with considerable amount of damage taken and loss of ammunition. As you can't loot your enemies there's maximum of few times you can take this approach in short period of time. After few of these kind of encounters you're out of ammo and rations (to get your health back up), meaning you're in deep **** if you now get spotted. After you complete the game you get FAMAS with unlimited ammo supply. With it you can practically blaze the whole game through. Same in MGS2 and MGS3. In second game encounters with enemy squads are even more deadly as they're equipped with shields etc. They're not unwinnable but challenging enough and if you head from such fight to fight you end up just like in MGS1 - in trouble as you've ran out of ammunition and other equipment, making direct combat the very last solution. In MGS3 you get M16 with unlimited ammo after you complete the game. With it you can just shoot your way through the game way more effectively than in MGS1 as you can aim from first person, making game essentially easy shooter. Now let's take other game, Deus Ex I must infiltrate to the military base. I have my loyal silenced SMG and buckshot (aka shotgun) ready, both with enough ammo to take down an army. On the other hand I have things such as silenced pistol, tranquilizer darts, my nano-sword... Now I could go in with direct attack approach. Or maybe I could bust that defense station not far from me and hack the turrets to do the dirty job for me? Or then I could go on more subtle, agent style approach by sneaking in and silently taking out guards. I choose latter. I hide from huge guardian bots and cameras,deal with lonesome guards with my silenced arsenal and loot their bodies for more SMG rounds etc. untill I have reached my ammo carryin capacity (6 roundw with 30 bullets in each round) Whew, now I'm in base. Unfortunately I stumbled upon route that is nigh-impossible to go through without considerable skills in hacking to deal with cameras. My skill level isn't quite good enough so I can't help but take the risk. ohgoddamnit I was seen. Alarms go off and whole base seems to be after me. Thank god I had chosen stealthier way before as I now really need this extra firepower. I run and try to find cover in mazelike corridors, shooting my way through men in blacks, soldiers... In the end I emerge victorious. My SMG and buckshot have been pretty much emptied of all ammunition but I took out dozens of enemies, meaning there isn't any considerable resistance in the area left. Soon I'm in next level. Now let's go through this situation again. This time I've spend my skillpoints on hacking. I deal with guards outside by turning turrets against guards. Inside I manage to hack all the cameras offline, making sneaking through the area a lot more easier. One guard spots me but before he manages to make alarm I've already dealt with him with my silenced pistol. And now I'm in next level. let's go through this situation one more time. This time we go in like real men. Enormous gunfight results in outside but I win in the end and ender military base. I still have ammunition left but there's no way I can go through even half as big enemy force as in outside and inside there's enemies double the number of outside guards. As I don't have any skillpoints in hacking I must be extremely careful with cameras. I manage to my own surprise sneak through and get to next level. I try this approach again but this time cameras spot me and gunfight starts. I simply try to ran away and only shooting the people I absolutely have to. I ran out of ammo and am forced to use my trusty nano-sword with which I manage to cleave my way through. Now I'm in the next level out of ammo and desperately in need of medpacks or aug canisters to get power for my regeneration implants again. Wait, isn't that maintenance building over there? Maybe I can sneak there through that tunnel... All 3 very different approaches. All can work and all can fail. Now what happens if we're given infinite ammo here? I have no worries about running out of ammo for my SMG or buckshot so I just rush in and quickly dispatch all enemies outside. I go inside, build cover from metal boxes and let myself to be seen by camera. Then I just shoot shoot shoot shoot and shoot enemies as they reach opposite end of the corridor. Not fun, not strategic, easy and boring. 5) I didn't talk anything about limitting how much our character can carry ammo did I? Ammo capacity is unique for each game and set to suit the purpose of the game. That's something Obsidian should decide. If small ammo capacity is best for the game fine, if big, fine. MGS had big ammo capacity but you could still run out of ammo, same with many other games. Heck, it's possible to run out of ammo in nearly all shooters if you utilize tactics you'd use with infinite ammo design 6) Haven't played Mass Effect but I very, very often hear as long as you ain't complete idiot you can just gun your enemies down utilizing Gears of War method. And Mass Effect is scifi game. As for gun lethality I've talked about it earlier. GoW gameplay is insanely repetitive too and by no means favourable approach to the game. Not to mention it most of the time doesn't entail the "kicking in with blazing rifles" way that OE employees seem to buff as one approach. Mass Effect combat also looks not too agile and smooth, instead favouring the current GoW cover-shoot-cover (boring) method. Something that doesn't seem to be case in Alpha Protocol judged by interviews. Not to mention it just isn't right combat mechanics for spy game. To quote myself "In infinite ammo design this doesn't mean anything. Find cover and shoot from there to the general direction of enemy. They'll go down eventually" -------------------------------------- Infinite ammo steals meaning from stealth and melee approach. Why one would ever bother to melee (if not for change of pace) as you can just shoot your enemies from other side of map with your sniper rifle with unlimitted ammo supply? And why bother with cumbersome, slow stealthing when you can just bust in everywhere and kill anything with your twin Gatlings of Doom +1 ? That simply isn't true. If the game features stealth options that fun to play, then people will choose those options. Hitman: Blood Money is a good example this, you can play stealth as a ghost or an assassin, or you can play guns blazing FPS style. Perhaps you are unable to help yourself when faced with an unlimited or large ammo supply, but don't assume every player is the same. I haven't played Blood Money but in previous Hitman games it was by far way too easy and favourable tactic to just walk in and shoot everything unless you played with most hard difficulty as weapons didn't do even remotely enough damage on you. Add that with AI stupidities etc. "FPS style" was normally the easiest approach. Something that IS NOT right for assasin or spy game edit: few spelling mistakes and forgotten words

...EU? Iran isn't in europe silly

If I can make a suggestion? Make it like the letters A and P are middle of epic fight of awesome propotions. The A letter would be dualwielding ninjas dualwielding katanas and the letter P would be dualwielding robots dualwielding rocket launchers. It would be Epic. /signed. Haha, indeed While you're at it you might as well sign this

Yeah well, most of REM's material is somehow boring, predictable and similar. It's not fun when you can most of the time guess how chords are going to progress before they do, something that severely weakens them in my eyes compared to e.g Pixies or 90's Radiohead Automatic is different deal, it has shifts, dynamics and interesting structures and great production. Unlike typically I don't get bored around 1:50 mark (and I like listening to looooong prog masterpieces) REM - Man on the Moon Maybe the best song on the album *shrug*

Revan, you wouldn't appear half as stupid if you admitted "fine I didn't know this and acted a bit stupid" instead of "lolol im just joking man tis was rhetorical question roofles" Ahem, and where's your proof about K3 being cancelled, hmm? Do you honestly think I'm going to go search for files and news posted in here TWO years ago? No LA actually leaked the concept art too

yo Matthew, great pix Check this out

This speaks for itself

And as long as Nightandshape doesn't offer any kind of (beliavable) backing for his criticism you're winning