J.E. Sawyer

we need somebody dumb enough to buy interplay, first. taks I don't think Interplay has the rights anymore. I believe they are with Atari now.

The Vigoorian Flail. You can run really long combos with that and generate loads of essence. In Black, I loved using Lunar (the staff) against any enemies with quick movement. It had such a huge area and was so fast that it made up for the relatively low damage.

I played GRAW2 back-to-back with Rainbow Six: Vegas, and I found the former lacking in many areas. Though I would say elements like the GUI, level design, animations, and sound were reasonably solid, the core gameplay itself was often frustrating. The problems were a culmination of bad AI, a poor command interface, some other generally clumsy mechanics, and story/dialogue elements that could have been much better. Your teammates are not very effective. Not only do they fire their weapons at a rate of about one bullet every six seconds, but they have the firearm accuracy of Don Knotts in The Shakiest Gun in the West. Their responsiveness to commands is slow and often haphazard in execution. These problems are compounded by the d-pad command interface. It's very easy to accidentally move your team when you simply want them to fire at a target. And when they do move, they usually move to a place where you do not want them. The game doesn't show you their target positions until after the command is given. This is something that Full Spectrum Warrior executed much better several years ago. In FSW, it was always very clear where your folks were going to go. In GRAW2, such a mistake puts your squad out in the open unless you re-focus them or pull them back to you. I did not like the cover mechanics much. I enjoyed R6V's because it allowed me to always be explicit about when I went to and from cover. GRAW2's slippy-slidey method was often frustrating. It was also really annoying to lean out from cover and fire a rifle grenade into the cover I was using (typically killing myself). I had trouble with the health meters because I'm red-green color blind and don't really "read" heartbeat spikes. Usually the cases where I lived or died seemed haphazard because enemies weren't that accurate with their guns. The firing mechanics were pretty solid once you went into aim mode, though really without aim mode you might as well not even have a fire button, because you will miss with almost every shot you take. Piloting the UAV could be fun, but it got old very quickly. It just became a routine "I have to do this" step when the UAV was in the level. In the later levels, the UAV was absent but it didn't really matter because dudes were just pouring out at me. The story's premise was fine, but the inclusion of tons of foreign mercenaries seemed really weird. I think I heard an English accent, American, Dutch (?), and a voice that sounded like Satan himself. I also have started to notice that companies (especially Ubi) will do just about anything to prevent having an obviously Arab or Muslim antagonist in the game. It's like the United Colors of Terrorism. I won't be too hard on the story or dialogue here, but there were a few moments of notable inconsistency. I did think it was interesting to deal with the U.S./Mexican border as a setting, but the story kind of devolved into foreign mercenaries and terrorists bringing nuclear weapons through the border which didn't seem that fresh. There were some very fun moments in the game, particularly any of the Blackhawk rail sequences or the occasions where you had a Littlebird cruising around with you, but overall I thought the game could have been much better. It was obviously entertaining enough for me to finish it, but I had plenty of frustrating moments. I award this game 5.5 out of 8 UAVs.

'Sup G's? Sooooo... lately I have been talking with some of the other Obsidz folks about issues that affect the making, use, and distribution of custom content. Chief among these are: * The lack of an official hak editor. * The lack of an official UTF-8 string editor. * The lack of a place where "stand-alone" (unaffiliated with modules and campaigns) haks can live (override and data folders not really being a good home for such things). * The lack of documentation on the order in which things are loaded and from where (with order being very important, as it establishes what files have "last say"). * Data files can be read in from about eight different places in myriad formats. * .haks must be explicitly called out from individual campaigns and modules. * There is no logging of .hak and override content being loaded to see gets read in last and from where. * There is no data screen where campaigns, .haks, and override files can be seen, much less managed. How are important are these things to you? I would like to see at least a few of these addressed. Most notably, I would like to see clear feedback on what data is recognized by the game (preferably at the launcher screen) and a log of when it is loaded. I would also like to make the loading of .haks implicit (automatic) based on where they are placed. I.e. all .haks in the haks folder always get loaded, all .haks in a campaign folder always gets loaded with the .cam (?) file in the folder, and all .haks in a module folder get loaded with the .mod in the same folder. Of course, this would demand a re-structuring of the load order and .mods would always have to be in their own folders. Nathaniel drew the pyramid of load order, which helps with this. I can't draw a pyramid on the train, but try to imagine it. OVERRIDE (.hak, .zip, all other data formats) Module (.hak) Campaign (.hak) Haks (.hak) Data (.zips and other stuff) This is in reverse load order, so core data is loaded first, followed by content in .haks from the haks folder, follower by .haks from the campaign's folder and .haks from the module's folder. Finally, the almighty override takes priority over everything, which really leaves it as a place for testing (which is what it is for) and for people who absolutely can't stand some aspect of a campaign or module they are playing. The suggested benefit of this is that you could have "generic" .haks like Josh's Fancy Spells or Annie's Super Cool Item Pak as .haks in the haks folder that take precedence in all modules and campaigns unless trumped by the specific content in a campaign or module (in which case the assumption is that you downloaded the campaign or module to actually enjoy what the builder had in mind). If you're the sort of person that hates the default sword models (for example) and you want Adonnay's swords in all campaigns, you can dump them in the override with the game warning you at launch that files really should only be in the override folder for testing purposes. There are a bunch of other things associated with this, but Rich "Ask the Community What They Think" Taylor wanted me to get feedback on the big issues before we seriously consider any of this (as it could be a lot of work to re-organize everything).

Focus on the mages. Only pay as much attention to the rider as is required to avoid him. Kill the mages, rolling if they launch fireballs at you. They drop blue essence, so you can regenerate your health pretty easily as long as you don't get pounded too much. It might be tempting to absorb the essence to do ultimates, but... don't. The mages will re-spawn many times (maybe a dozen total mages), but they will eventually stop spawning. When this happens, you can focus entirely on the horseman and things are much easier. Doing a wall jump + strong (Y) works well on him when he turns around. You can also just do charge moves and thrash him as he's coming. It doesn't take too many hits to kill him.

Awesome offensive spells and wildshape forms.

I always understood that Rainbox Six and Ghost Recon were a lot more lethal and heavily ambush-oriented than the new games. Rainbow Six seemed similar (at least on the surface) to SWAT. I watched a co-worker at Midway play Ghost Recon and it looked very creep-and-kill-oriented. I enjoyed Rainbow Six, but I can see that it's not really the same game as the original. However, I also didn't play it on "realistic". GRAW2, on the other hand, I did not enjoy on any level.

Designing Character-Based Console Games, by Mark Davies. It's a pretty solid book, but all relatively basic stuff. Very thorough, covering aspects ranging from character design to combat to level layout, etc. I would recommend it for people getting into console development for the first time.

In Baldur's Gate, Fallout, and NWN2, does your character start out under the assumption that the world is a totally swell, normal place free from horrible monsters? Most characters in Cthulhu stories start out as completely clueless. Even in Fallout, the assumption is that the world has been incredibly screwed up by nuclear war and radiation.

Lovecraft stories make for crummy gameplay. Yes, the characters in the stories are typically unsuspecting buffoons. Do you really want to play unsuspecting buffons? Really? Delta Green operatives know things about the Cthulhu mythos, but they still don't understand (nor can they ever understand) the big picture. Delta Green also isn't a government agency. It was once a government agency and was dissolved to create Majestic-12 (a group of terrible dummies who want to be pals with Cthulhu). The people who work in Delta Green are operating completely in violation of local and federal laws wherever they go. They don't have federal funding, don't go through special training programs, etc. They are just smart, organized people who are focused on defeating the various armies of Cthulhu, Nyarlathotep, the Karotechia, the Fate, Majestic-12, etc. Personally, I think that works a lot better than playing in a CoC setting and having to act incredibly shocked at every revelation that is familiar to every Lovecraft fan. "THERE ARE MONSTERS WHAT WHAT?! PERHAPS I CAN DEFEAT THEM WITH MY .22 PISTOL AND WALKING STICK! OH NO I AM BEING TURNED INTO A SERVANT OF GLAAKI GURGLE GURGLE." I would also really like to see a game with a setting similar to Godlike.

Cthulhu stories and the CoC tabletop game were usually about hapless rubes being caught up in the gears of the mythos. Delta Green operatives are abnormally aware of and equipped to deal with the Cthulhu mythos. It avoids the situations where a private eye, housewife, and baker are thrown up against Nyarlathotep.

Delta Green. http://www.delta-green.com/

Caveat lector: I have not played any of the other Rainbow Six games, so I did not come into this title with many expectations. Also, I'm just jotting down thoughts in no particular order. This was the first game I've played for more than a few hours on my Xbox 360. It felt easy to get into. Though the game had a lot of mechanics, they were introduced step-by-step, though I think I might have missed a few tips along the way. The controls seemed sensible for the most part, but switching weapons or attachments was a pain since both thumbs had to come off of the thumbsticks, usually with the left trigger held down. The first person perspective was usually a hindrance, and I took cover just as often to see my character and what was around him as to avoid enemy fire. Since I couldn't easily track my squadmates or their status, I was regularly checking up on them visually, which can be annoying in a precise console shooter. I have to admit that I am not a fan of audio-only feedback on my squadmates. Tons of people are yelling, bullets are flying everywhere, and I often can't sort out what the hell is going on. The reality of war, but I don't want it on my Xbox 360, thx. I liked that my squadmates would follow suit with me. When I crouched, they crouched. When I equipped my suppressor, they also equipped theirs. I'm not sure I understood how their stealth mechanics work, because I think I could set off a daisycutter in the room next to two guys and their response would be, "Did you hear something?" But it was nice to mark guys, open and clear, and hear the muffled bullets of my teammates as the dots disappeared. Grenades felt more powerful/dangerous than in most games I've played, though the smoke grenades seemed to work inconsistently. Maybe that is by design. I thought that the weapons were not differentiated well. Perhaps they were trying to be realistic (again), but I felt little reason to select any given assault rifle over another assault rifle. Usually I wanted a weapon of a given class, with a certain attachment, and with the highest ammunition capacity. I carried around so many magazines of ammunition and came across so many equipment containers that only once in the game did I have to pick up the weapon of a fallen enemy. The level design was very interesting, as I usually had several options for traversing any environment and engaging any given set of enemies. I was always looking to the left and right, up and down. Very good use of vertical space. And despite the fact that I was fighting humans with guns throughout the entire story, I never tired of it due to the different environments and challenges that they presented. "Hold this spot while Jung **** around on a computer out in the open" moments were among the most irritating in the game, a sentiment two of my co-workers agreed with. My annoyance grew when I realized that the computers were always placed facing in (toward a cubbyhole) to prevent you from taking up a tactically sound position when the inevitable clown car full of guys poured forth. Those sections seemed to be very "against" your game training. "Guys, sit in a box facing outward toward a field full of potential murder camps." My squadmates usually moved very well, and I was impressed by how smart they were -- both with and without orders. However, on a few occasions they would try to move to the inside of a door when I would command them to move to a doorway while looking through my snake cam, when in almost all cases the desired effect would be the opposite. Rappelling was a lot of fun, especially when I could set up my squad to breach just as I came in through a doorway. There were some really fantastic firefights following that sort of set-up. I also liked the use of thermal goggles and how they would often be foiled by flames, generators, etc. I thought the story was fine, but the terrorist characters were pretty absurd. Irena just seemed like a dumb, generic terrorist and I didn't really care about killing her. Her motivations were unclear, and I didn't have any real attachment to my early Rainbow team members, so I never got as pumped up about tracking her down as my character was. Despite its few gameplay flaws (and the fact that sometimes levels will load without textures), I thought this was a very fun game overall. I felt like my shooting skills and my command skills were equally important. My teammates were valuable, I was valuable, and it seemed as much about tactics as taking precise shots at the bad guys. I award this game 6.3 of 8 flashbangs.

The level difference in those cases was 2-4, tops; the orcs and goblins often had several levels of barbarian, fighter, or sorcerer. It wasn't really any different than the typical D&D encounter where the party fights a bunch of guys that are all a few levels lower than the average party member. When we're talking about 8th level PCs against 3rd to 5th level enemies, the enemies have a much better chance of causing grief than 10th level enemies against 20th+ level enemies. That's how D&D's math works. I've criticized this in the past, and it applies to all facets of character strength and high-level difficulty. It is what makes jacks-of-all-trades worthless at higher levels and what makes specialists virtually untouchable unless they are sucker punched by the DM. The high-level character has bonuses to checks that place the result outside of a lower-level character's die range. That is, the lower-level or jack-of-all-trades character could not succeed at a contest against the high-level specialist without a natural 20 (or sometimes not even with a natural 20). You can use reasonable tactics and adaptive smartyness on monsters to foil the players, but that only goes so far and for so long. When the PCs get to the upper teen levels, the opposition has to stay relatively close to their level range or they simply won't have the numbers to get the job done. Adaptive smartyness also has to be developed very carefully to prevent the Sucker Punch Syndrome. If ham-fisted, it comes across as artificial exploitation, with the enemies seemingly prescient about every weakness on the PCs or safeguarded against all PC offensive capabilities. As a minor example, the ice troll shamans in Icewind Dale 2 would cast fire warding spells on themselves as soon as the PC caused any fire damage to a member of their team. People flipped about this even though it was 1) reactive and 2) totally sensible for the monsters to do.

We don't know if it's correct or not until a large number of people try it out. The patch betas are entirely voluntary. The net effect of people voluntarily testing out the changes is that the finished patch gains stability faster. There is no practical way to match the effect of a public beta, so it would be silly not to do it.

D&D's mechanics don't really support this sort of stuff. Unless the enemies are equipped with items that are way out of line with what characters of that level have, they stand next to no chance of defeating an individual 20th+ level character, much less a party of 20th level characters. A party of six 10th level characters against a properly-equipped 20th level character is going to get annihilated, especially in a computer environment where the player can reload and adjust to whatever "dirty tricks" the 10th level party has. 10th level characters simply don't have the numbers to get the job done unless they are dramatically inflated. They will fail saving throws, rarely connect with attacks, take far more damage than they receive, etc. And you'd be lucky if a hundred 5th level fighters surrounding a 20th level fighter would put more than a slight dent in the latter's heath. I guess you could give them all bows on an open plain so they could all fire at him every round, with five actually landing shots. Or they could rapid fire and land ten shots. Of course if the fighter's 20th level wizard pal is nearby, they'll all be dead in a round or two anyway. You can pump up an army of 5th level guys to make them have the stats of 10th level guys, but if that's what's required -- why not just start with higher level characters?

Because there was effectively zero framework for multiselect and we had to build it from the ground up.

AFAIK, Ninja Gaiden: Sigma is the PS3 game, but it's basically an upgraded version of Ninja Gaiden Black. That's not necessarily a terrible thing, but Ninja Gaiden 2 will probably be coming out for Xbox 360.

I have been a little busy lately, but mostly I'm waiting for some custom content clarifications/fixes.

Why not just use the attack's die roll and keep the divisions simple? 1 = YOU LOSE 11 = Head (5%) 2, 12 = Right Arm (10%) 3, 13 = Left Arm (10%) 4-5, 14-15 = Right Leg (20%) 6-7, 16-17 = Left Leg (20%) 8-10, 18-20 = Torso (30%) This roughly corresponds to the Rule of Nines and makes the smaller extremities more difficult to critically hit as they are lower on the chart. You can switch in and out body parts for weird creatures or you can add subdivisions for rare cases. E.g. you might switch the numbers for a harpy to be so: 1 = YOU LOSE 11 = Head (5%) 2, 12 = Right Leg (10%) 3, 13 = Left Leg (10%) 4-5, 14-15 = Right Wing (20%) 6-7, 16-17 = Left Wing (20%) 8-10, 18-20 = Torso (30%) Obviously you'd have to make custom charts for special creatures like beholders, but you'd have to do that under most systems. What you want to do for "special" damage is up to you. An old AD&D system said that if more than 25% of the character's HP were done to a limb, it was maimed. If more than 50% were done, it was "ruined". A maimed head might be a confusion effect. A ruined head might result in unconsciousness with a Fort save for instant death. A maimed torso might mean the character has a bleeding effect, taking damage every round, with a broken torso doing additional damage to the character any time he or she takes a full action. Stuff like that. If you want to roll this into a called shot system, just use the following penalties to the attack roll. In such cases, a hit means that you strike the target and disregard the standard chart. Your chances of hitting a specific part are much higher, but the consequence for failing is a complete miss. Head -8 Either Arm -6 Either Leg -4 Torso -2

Yes, it's worth it. I think it should actually be easier to find Black now than the original.

It's primarily an action movie, so yes.

I just saw this at the IMAX theatre in the Metreon, San Francisco. Here's my short review: fantastic action, pretty crummy dialogue.

I think your reply is well-put, but a cop out. Media like plays were once just about pure entertainment and held up lofty events and people that were far beyond the walk of their viewers' lives. There is a certain amount of profundity in Shakespeare's tragedies and histories, but they do not compare to something like Ibsen's A Doll's House, which was extremely radical in its time. Never before had there been a significant production that attempted to portray an environment realistically, with ordinary middle-class characters, and events that were directly relevant to the audience. And A Doll's House did make people extremely uncomfortable, so much that it created a scandal. But many other "realistic" plays followed, and today's plays and films are not all morality lessons or tragedies or histories. There are plenty of plays and films about ordinary, contemporary people caught in circumstances that speak directly to the audiences' experiences. If the main argument against serious themes in games is that it isn't currently done, that's not much of an argument at all. The entry was written because serious themes are not currently visited in games. However, I do think there are many issues that could be seriously addressed in a contemporary setting: drug use and drug crime, terrorism, immigration, the military industrial complex, genocide, etc. All of these things could be examined in the context of a militaristic game with high action, but they usually aren't. Games in the Rainbow Six, Splinter Cell vein certainly could (there's plenty of exposition), but they usually don't. Mercenaries 2: World In Flames looks like it might be a good example of a title that attempts to deal with some serious issues more directly. Hell, they already created enough of a fracas to get the government of Venezuela to complain about it. That seems like a step in the right direction to me. I was a student of hagiography and witch-hunting, but I wouldn't consider the exploration of sanctity and diabolism in the Early Modern World to be tired for the average person. I am willing to accept that students of law and political science might be tired of subjects dealing with law and political science, but most people simply don't see much of that with any regularity or depth.

Yes it does. Each level of blade, blunt, and hand-to-hand adds a variant of the power attack, which is triggered by moving in a different direction. Earlier you wrote that there was no challenge to the stealth game in Oblivion. There is. You cannot run out into the middle of a brightly lit room unless you are Capt. Chameleon. You have to make an effort to observe light sources and active (potential) enemies just as you would in a dedicated stealth game. The mechanics are not as deep as they are in a dedicated stealth game, but neither are the combat mechanics. And that makes sense considering the breadth of the game.