Cl_Flushentityhero

I'd say that taking the viewer out of Taken's idiotic plot would be a good thing. Idiotic? You mean to say that the premise is implausible, or that one guy could do anything about it is implausible?

Holy crap, "Taken" has the most sublime CQC I've ever seen in a movie. Flashy enough to be exciting, yet not so ridiculous that it takes you out of the moment in the story. Also, the camera remained stable enough that you could actually appreciate what he was doing (rare these days). I also thought Liam did a great job with his acting, which is par for the course.

Oh, it be coming out. I wish we could say the same with certainty about Splinter Cell: Conviction. Provided it isn't vaporware, I think the concept will be much less novel by the time it releases.

Where are these "really interesting" games you speak of? The last time I checked Butcher Bay did a number of novel things in the FPS genre despite being licensed. I don't see how companies making their own IPs should inherently result in a more or less interesting game. Execution is everything.

And CQC has been replaced with a chainsaw bayonet.

Which is exactly why it's crucial that I blurt it out followed by an exclamation point.

Gun kata!

I'd prefer if I didn't have to do that. My Hard Drive is only 12 gigs, and I already have Bioshock installed because the game is completely broken if I play it from the disc. IME (and I've played Bioshock), I've yet to play a game that you *have* to install on the 360.

My understanding is that in order for a commercial product to use the actual brand names for guns, cars, etc. one must pay a licensing fee to the company (hence why half-life mods that went retail had to change their weapon names to generic ones). I'm no lawyer though, so that's about as far as my guesswork goes. I couldn't even begin to guess why that is, other than it provides the manufacturers with another way to make additional money.

I also thought the models looked very replica-like, which is why I included the paraphrase quotes. I think what it really means is that they're basically doing actual guns, but attempting to cover their asses legally and avoid those fans who say stuff like "The C7A2 should have an ambidextrous fire selector and your model doesn't." And yes, I know that ambidextrous controls on a C7 are optional, but I'm trying to make a point here.

I believe they said they were 'making up their own guns based on real-life examples.'

I've heard that's it's kind of uncomfortable when appendix carried.

Experimental-type weapons seem like they would fit well in the spy genre . . .

I realize that whenever another game is mentioned on these forums, there's somebody who has a deep personal problem with it, but Gears 2 includes some pretty large spaces. That said, I don't expect AP to have the same technical facility with the engine because they lack an army of gnomes dedicated to visual minutia. Overall, I think AP is covering a lot of territory already, and putting modern ARPGs into large open outdoor areas might be a job for a different franchise.

Well, it seems like the main problem with user content would be not creating the physical architecture of a level, but instead getting the conversations and other AP bells and whistles working. The ability to have user-made campaigns and mods would rock my socks, but yeah, probably not going to happen.

. . . yeah, I kind of get the impression that there won't be any unarmed or CQC-using enemies. As such, disarming them without incapacitating them would put the AI in a situation where it doesn't know what to do. Personally, if I got wtfdisarmed, I'd probably just cower on the floor, but videogame bad guys tend to be more resilient.

I don't know what you guys are talking about. Starbreeze is awesome, therefore Starbreeze doing Bourne will be awesome. I don't really care about the perspective if it's good. Also, Starbreeze's "breakaway" game that landed them the Riddick contract was third person, so I wouldn't over-generalize.

Rainbow Six may have been smart, but the friendly AI was not. I do miss logistics and detailed team member stats. I don't miss having to manually button-hook my squads through every damn door or having them die while waiting for the perfect headshot on a terrorist standing in front of them. One thing I appreciate about Vegas is that when you tell your squad to clear a room, they do it without preposterous amounts of hand-holding and tunnel vision. They are also able to competently shoot the enemy, oddly enough. One thing I don't like is the abundance of scripted encounters in the campaign. Rather than taking on a clear objective with adequate intel, it feels more like you're on an episode of 24 winging it the whole time. That has its charms too, I admit.

What did I miss? I watched carefully at the time, but that was during weeks of frenzied activity that has since driven the details out of my brain. Others' mileage may vary, but my reading is that the love interest was an agent. Crowe says something about how everybody's motives are suspect and then the camera comes to rest on the chick. So, really, I didn't get a warm fuzzy feeling so much as the suspicion that Leo's character got screwed over in yet another way. Optimists may suggest that they live happily ever after anyway, but that's not the point IMO, and the movie seems to agree since that's where it ends.

Did you pay *really* close attention at the end of the movie?

Actually, I think it's American Kenpo. Kenpo is more striking-based, and although I'm sure it has disarms I don't think AP will feature them. From the brief video clips and screenshots, it looks like just beating people up as if they weren't armed [/passive aggressive]. They have mentioned that enemies will sometimes block your moves, though I don't think they'll reverse them and knock Thornton on his ass. I haven't seen Taken yet, but I'm hoping to. I hear that the plot is a little generic, but seeing Liam beat people up is worth the price of admission.

Are they genuine pacing problems? Or are the movies just not trying to be Gladiator? I agree with you in a sense, but for reasons I myself acknowledge are shallow. American Gangster and Body of Lies are pretty sparing on the action sequences, and they tend to be loaded at one section of the movie. The thing is, Ridley is, IMO, good enough at maintaining intensity with character interaction that I'm almost willing to let the paucity of shootings and stabbings slide. After all, there's a (shrinking) whole genre of drama films in which action does not punctuate plot points (or even exist). What is explosion-short for a thinking action movie is actually pretty exciting by the standards of the more talky genres. Is there a place commercially and critically for movies that fall between the two extremes? If you ask me, probably yes.

Then you sir are in the minority, because the critics and fans raved about R6 Vegas. It is a FPS with a third-person cover system, btw. It's already common knowledge that AP has a cover system, my point (which apparently was unclear) is that combat is likely to be a key if not the major focus of gameplay.

I highly doubt that this game is going to be about a gun toting man doing spy work. It'd be stupid for him to zip around and slaughter everyone that's going to give him information... of course James Bond did it in Quantum of Solace. Obs has already said somewhere that the primary activity was shooting people in the head.

Flat. Bland. Forgettable. Underdeveloped. Well, since you opted not to elaborate, suffice to say I strongly disagree.