J.E. Sawyer

I'm not crying because I didn't work on it and because I know it rules.

Kris Kristofferson owns btw.

Steel is great for acoustics.

If it happens infrequently enough that it's an uncommon occurrence and not an instant kill, the player can pretty easily heal out of it. MinDam against the player means there is always a cost, even if minor, to walking into gunfire. "Getting comfortable" isn't really a behavior of the player. The player is either attempting to avoid attacks or isn't. A continuous small penalty for getting hit is pretty likely to feel better to a player than a stray bullet hitting the femoral artery for 120 damage. Like I wrote before, you can change any of this stuff in GECK if you'd like to, but I think most players will find that MinDam (both against them and against enemies) tends to produce more enjoyable game play than allowing damage to tank to 0.

I disagree. I think it is a really terrible mechanic because it relies almost entirely on random chance and virtually nothing that the player is doing. Fighting Navarro is probably the best example of this, as you and the Enclave trade nickel-and-dime body blows round after round until a crit wipes out (hopefully) an enemy or WHOOPS! You reload the game! The logical alternative to what you're suggesting is that you shoot enemies and nothing happens while enemies shoot you and nothing happens.

I'm honestly not sure what is the design reason for this. Because it makes the game boring against certain enemy types once you get heavy enough armor. With MinDam set to 0.0, eventually you can literally just walk around a horde of guys pounding you with low-end weapons and never take any damage. It doesn't really produce good long-term game play. Similarly, I don't think it produced good results in F1 and F2, where near the end game people would go round after round taking 0 damage until an armor-bypassing triple damage critical forced a reload. 0.2 MinDam feels pretty good to me. When a weapon's hitting MinDam, that's the equivalent of 80% DR, which is nothing to sneeze at. If some dude pops out with an SMG and starts blasting you in good armor, chances are pretty good that his (for example's sake only) 9 DAM is going to be reduced to 1.8 DAM. A weapon that maybe did 90 (for example's sake only) DPS now does 18. Sure, it doesn't make you invulnerable, but that's a huge reduction. If you disagree and are playing on the PC, you are certainly free to tune MinDam, armor DT, or even armor DR if you are absolutely in love with the old F1/F2 armor systems.

No.

No creatures have DR. Bullet sponge enemies have a lot of HP and typically don't have DT. High HP characters with no armor are begging the player to use low DAM, high DPS weapons on them. In my current playthrough, I definitely make specific tactical choices about when to use certain weapons/ammo based on enemy armor/health/range. The anti-materiel rifle has a very low DPS for when you get it in the game. There are some weapons you can get very early in the game that easily eclipse its DPS by a healthy margin. But the sheer amount of damage it does in a single shot can bypass pretty much any DT, making its effective DPS much higher against certain targets.

I think he's being a bit presumptuous about the purpose of the armor system, but I still think it's a question worth asking... Is there a system similar to the DPS / DAM tradeoff in armor usage? Or does armor follow a linear progression upwards? Given how armor works in practice in F1/F2, I am extremely skeptical that the DR/DT system was designed to "combat" picking the armor with the highest DR/DT. A system is nothing without content, and the content of F1 and F2 featured a form of power armor as the end-all-be-all endgame armor. I mean, you could finish F1 in standard combat armor or Brotherhood armor, but power armor/APA is so much better that it's mostly an aesthetic choice. Armor does follow linear DT progressions upward, but outfits are now divided into Light/Medium/Heavy classes. Light moves without any movement penalty, Medium with some, and Heavy with more. Of course, some armor types come with their own built-in bonuses and penalties. I think there are compelling reasons to use different armor types, even toward the high end.

Can you explain this in more detail?

Fewer variables are easier to tune than more variables. I tried to do everything through DT and I think the results are pretty good. I left in DR in case my math on paper didn't translate to fun in the game. It also allows PC modders to run buck wild with it if they want to. The GECK/engine/display still support both.

It intentionally contrasts Freeside, which is extremely run down.

The 3sat interview was for more of a general technology segment so their audience is probably not looking for how many types of special .45-70 Gov't ammo there are in the game.

Yeah because it rules.

Subtle visual effects often read very poorly during gameplay. The Devil May Cry series, which I personally believe is a fantastic action series, uses extremely large visual effects and I think it works well for them. When you see Dante's muzzle flash from his pistols in motion and aren't concentrating on them, you might not notice that they are literally the size of his entire body. But yeah, they really are that big. When you have characters at that scale, exaggerating the visual effects helps the player more easily identify what's going on in real-time.

Hey everyone. DS3 owns. Later.

When questioned, Orris states that he shot through two thugs with one bullet (unlikely but within the realm of possibility given the weapon he's using). The player has the ability to press the issue with Orris (or examine the bodies on the ground) in various ways, but this player chose not to do so.

Hardcore Mode does not affect damage done or received.

Everyone should be obsessed with snow globes sorry.

"War never changes," isn't about the face of war, organization of war, or its various mechanisms. It's about humanity's ceaseless love affair with war and its most basic motivations. "In the 21st century, war was still waged over the resources that could be acquired." Despite the obvious ideological differences between NCR and Caesar's Legion, the conflict in F:NV is fundamentally about basic resources: water and electricity.

The bad call I was referring to wasn't offsides (Iniesta clearly wasn't) but what should have been a Dutch corner kick turned into a Spanish goal kick despite the ball deflecting off of the Spanish wall.

The Dutch were consistently booked and eventually sent off. A bad call is a bad call. "Deserves" doesn't have anything to do with it. At its best it was still a terrible game full of fouling and flopping. Germany/Uruguay was infinitely more enjoyable to watch.

The winning goal was scored on a run off of an incorrectly called goal kick. What a triumph!

The insistence of the German defense on treating Forl

No M