J.E. Sawyer

Sorry, I should have written, "coordinate researching the viability of".

We have the GECK as well as all art source and code source. We coordinate the viability of any given addition/change with Bethesda since they have a decade-ish of experience with the technology base.

AP is almost done, so there's plenty to talk about.

I think most people consider it to be the weakest in the series, especially coming right after Chaos Theory.

He makes all of our stained glass windows.

Splinter Cell haters need to acknowledge how excellent a game Chaos Theory is. Seriously, come on.

Arguably, the point of any gameplay is challenge the player appropriately and reward him or her for meeting the challenge. If a mechanic simply encourages the player to blindly select an option or to test a random algorithm, there is no actual challenge. It's just the player banging his or her head against the wall until it happens to break.

With what don't you agree? Use as many or as few words as you like. It wasn't my decision to make on AP. I'm just defending the mechanical ideas/motivations behind using checkpoint systems.

Yep, we sure do have stuff we could show. Not sure there's any compelling reason to show/talk about it now rather than later. Any advantage gained by discussing it now is pretty much trumped by advantages gained by showing/talking later. * More polished. * More distinctive. * More of it. * More cohesive. * Will generate better momentum. If it's good now, it will be better later. If it's bad now, there's not much point to showing it/talking about it. It's loads of fun to talk about everything you tried/screwed up in the first half of a project when it's in a post-mortem. Not so much when you're actually in the midst of it.

lol

This isn't about me "disliking" people who take advantage of metagaming. Metagaming of the sort we have been discussing (using save/reload or uncontested re-tries before any given single-check obstacle) actually ruins whatever enjoyment or risk/reward was intended to be created by the systems it circumvents. This is why threshold checks for things like dialogue options and lockpicking are usually more enjoyable/less frustrating than random chance: they remove the save/reload metagame from the equation entirely. The key factor for success is how much the player invested in Skill A or Skill B and what temporary buffs the player has to expend, not what a single virtual die roll (which can be re-tried, uncontested, from a reload) haphazardly determined. I don't have a problem with telling other people how they're supposed to play their game because it's the entire point of my vocation. The goal is to create a spectrum of choice and constraint that people find enjoyable. The constraints create the challenge, and using the choices available gives the player the enjoyment of overcoming the challenge. But giving options for absolutely everything, on the absurd end of the spectrum, creates a game environment with uneven challenges that can never be balanced. A lot of these mechanics hinge and move with each other. Altering one can have a cascading effect through many others -- especially something as significant as save/load.

You can still do single-shot takedowns (lethal or non-lethal), but they must always be done against unaware/stunned opponents. If an opponent is fully aware and engaging you in combat, you have to beat 'em up for a while. With enough upgrades, I do think it's possible to take out low-level scumbags in one or two standard strikes anyway, but I'm not positive.

It's always our job to make the game challenging without being frustrating. By providing any mechanic, we are implicitly validating the player's use of it and it is our responsibility. A good example of this is statistic rolling in Icewind Dale. You're not "supposed" to re-roll your stats hundreds of times, but why should a player not make use of that option if we're providing it? Furthermore, how should we balance the game: for people who roll once or twice, or for people who roll until they get 16 average stats for their entire party? If we balance for the former group, the latter group finds the game significantly easier. One might say that they "shouldn't" have done that, that they ruined their own experience -- but we were the ones who gave them the tools to do it. The same responsibility applies to any mechanic, whether it's part of an advancement system, minigame, or even a save/load scheme. Badly placed checkpoints are obviously irritating as hell, but well-placed ones create excellent pacing and can encourage more tactical use of consumables (most important in RPGs, but also in a lot of action games) than when players are allowed to save anywhere. And, as others have written, a lot of games that allow you to "save anywhere" still don't allow you to save anytime, and it's usually for the same reason: to prevent meta-gaming/creep-saving.

All of the RPGs you just mentioned (except maybe Deus Ex) had game mechanics that could be endlessly meta-gamed/circumvented through save anywhere, quick save/quick reload: picking locks, dialogue checks (random vs. threshold), creep-saving mid-combat, etc.

Some comments on CQC, because I think some of the criticisms are valid: One of the biggest issues with any mechanic tied to an RPG system is one of scalability, i.e. if a value is a factor in how a mechanic works, how does that mechanic scale in a way where the player can perceive a benefit from the increment? Any ability that tends to result in a straight-up status effect with no duration (such as an instant kill or permanent knock-out) does not really scale, unless there is some sort of threshold in place. That means that Sam Fisher-style one-hit kills on every opponent do not (practically) have the potential to scale. Additionally, we found that our initial CQC mechanics were too brief and simple for a lot of people to enjoy: one or two hits and dudes were laid out, done for. Simply put, the majority of players wanted to pound the crap out of people. Obviously, not everyone does, but this, combined with a desire for a more finely granular system (for better RPG tuning/scalability) suggested that we have longer combos, flashier combos, and generally more striking in the vein of Rapid Fire or Perfect Weapon (films) than ultra-efficient one or two hit takedowns. Not that you're going to be beating on dudes for 12 hits or anything, but the combos are longer for that reason. RE: disarms and other AI-related nifty CQC-moves: I totally agree that those sort of elements would be fitting and awesome. As with anything, the depth of a system comes down to its scope relative to other systems. CQC is not as large of an element of AP as it is with Bourne (movies or game). It is more of a supplemental combat style than a dedicated mode of combat, so I don't want anyone to expect that it's going to be a very deep system. That said, comments about smoothness of animation, timing, etc. are always worth mentioning. Whatever we give to you (regardless of depth) should be as polished and excellent as we can make it. We will do our best to improve and polish our CQC before the game is completed.

Save points discourage some metagaming aspects/the creep-n-save playstyle. Similarly, it some games, it also encourages the use of consumables that are otherwise hoarded.

Are you really concerned about hair color when it comes to stereotypes?

This is actually pretty common in games. If the animation (from gun down to gun up and firing) moves at a "realistic" speed, trigger responsiveness feels like total garbage (or bullets fly out of thin air before the weapon is raised). It's one of those things where it tends to be better to look bad and feel good than look good and feel bad.

I have a feeling you can play it at a slower pace, but the player was executing a thoroughly-rehearsed, action-oriented playthrough. It looks good to me, much better than the hobo chair-hurling Sam Fisher we saw a few years ago.

7.62 what, though? 7.62x39mm is used in later Soviet weapons like the AK-47. NATO developed the 7.62x51mm from .308 Winchester for the M14 and M60. It seems like .30-06 Springfield was, in many ways, a superior round, but 7.62x51mm was adopted for NATO purposes. 5.56x45mm NATO was derived from .223 Remington in the late 50s and early 60s.

Sorry if it wasn't clear, but I was joking.

GIRL GIRL GIRL GIRL!!!!! Well done, gentlemen.

They were all imported, rechambered, and sporterized.

Ich las die W

.44 Magnum with .45 ACP or .45 LC? All three calibers are AMERICA SQUARED, just different eras and applications.