Cl_Flushentityhero

He said the news was big, he didn't say it was good )

Hopefully, they're playing their cards close to their chest. I've not known Obsidian to provide a lot of pre-release coverage on their titles in the past either.

Maybe, but they've been silent on the issue. Provided the release is still February-ish, it wouldn't surprise me if the game were feature-locked at this point. If they're already doing it, great. Otherwise I think we're out of luck.

HK-47 was the man. Err, well, he would be, if he were an organic life form.

Oh yeah, and I'm shocked that nobody has brought up the Palladium PnP game "Ninjas and Superspies." Granted it was almost more fun to theorize about than to actually play with all the rolls and stats, but man what a concept. It basically took everything that was cool about spy and action movies and made rules and skills for them (though I had to house rule dual-wielding).

It seems to me, as an uneducated observer, that implementing an entire lethal/nonlethal gameplay dichotomy would require a significant additional amount of work: in part for the actual addition of LTL weapons, and also in making that distinction meaningful from a gameplay standpoint. It's something I see as nice, but not essential to the game. For conscience purposes, you could always just play through using CQC.

Obs has had a history of not showing a whole lot of pre-release stuff. Then again, with KOTOR2 and NWN2 that could be partially justified by being a sequel and hence a fairly familiar experience. I certainly wouldn't mind seeing AP in action either.

Actually, the CB cast is in a lot of stuff (Samurai Champloo, Gungrave, Last Exile), including games. Didn't see any of them in AP though.

Hmm, I'm not sure I follow. In Mass Effect you *could* create characters of other ethnicities, but it's my understanding that Thornton is confirmed white. Then again, there's the possibility of this:

The video explains more succinctly than I ever could.

My answer: yes. The JBs are actually pretty homogenized now: they're all somewhat gritty, they all do CQC, they all use brawn and brains in combination, and they're all mentally unstable at times. If I had to differentiate between them, I'd say Bourne is more about the Martial Arts, Bond more about charm, and Jack Bauer is about being gritty. Bourne might also win the mentally unstable competition, particularly based on the books. For the record, I went with Bourne, because although some of the movie fight choreography (and the use of Matt Damon) made me go "ehh," I find the character concept most interesting at its core.

That argument is typically used with mechanics that have a significant effect on gameplay (for example, the infinite ammo discussion). My understanding is that the AP martial arts are not under enough control by the player so that it matters whether Thornton does this move or that. Thus, in this case, realism = aesthetic preference. Ol'JB is actually suggesting significant elaboration on the system itself (allowing you to use enemies against each other in addition to you against them), which would be cool solely based on gameplay function but perhaps out of the scope of AP for now. I think most of the preliminary "eeks" come from people whose preferences lean toward the realism end of the spectrum. There are things that could, provided you *never* make any mistakes (which is the unrealistic part), work a few times (not as something you use against hundreds of guys, because you'd make mistakes and die). Then there are moves that, even if you are Joe Frazier meets Dan Inosanto, simply wouldn't solve the problem before the other guy gets you. This is the more vs. less realism consideration; and it's mostly a visual style preference when the CQC is fairly simple in execution. Some people fall into to one category, some fall into the other. There are a few alarm button pressed so far for the "slightly higher" realism camp. 1) No close-combat weaponry. Obviously, a knife would stand a better chance than fists, but it is simpler to just use one set of moves from a dev standpoint. 2) Striking-based. If I punch somebody who has a gun, his first reaction will be to shoot me unless I either grab the weapon arm or hit him so hard he's 100% unconscious on his feet. Good luck with that second one (check the CQC screenshots). Also, leaving a guy somewhat incapacitated on the ground but with a gun in hand is kind of an "eh" thing that even most spy movies don't do anymore. I think even the naysayers can generally agree that Obsidian's decision is by no means "wrong" or "bad," it's just not quite what we'd expect from a "JB" inspired title unless we're talking old-school Bond with the Judo chop.

You aren't, by any chance, referring to this are you?

Hmm, I think the final call will be when we see it in action, whether on video or in-game. My personal inclination based on the screenshots is to say they probably took the unrealism further than was absolutely necessary, but until we see the actual moves executed we won't know for sure. It won't really affect my purchase decision either way, I'll just cringe less if I'm wrong about the particular school of Kenpo on display.

Also, on the subject of improvised weapons, there's a great book by Marc MacYoung called "Pool Cues, Beer Bottles," yada yada yada.

As additional perspective on Eisler, we frequent the same MA e-mail list. When writing his books (or discussing matters of MA) he regularly consults with a group of fiftyish people bearing credentials including 30+ years in the martial arts, degrees in psychology and law, ex-special forces, law enforcement, self-defense instructors, competition fighters, bouncers, mercenaries, etc. He doesn't strike me as the sort to make a claim unless he's done his homework, for what it's worth.

Whew, here goes. When I say simplifies, I mean "makes salient to the developer what is necessary to balance their game." Not having a base jump skill simplifies AP and I'd love it if we could, but that doesn't mean I'm going to say they've done wrong by not including it. It's one less feature to balance with the rest of the game, which means the features we *do* get will receive more attention. It's mostly a matter of priorities within what the game has set out to do, and I guess we differ there. Sounds like one o them personal preference thingies to me. Typically, shooters will force you into using either a specific bread & butter weapon or a specific category of weapon by ammo drops (such as assault rifle). That I can *choose* my bread & butter weapon rather than having it dictated by the drops allows me to play the game in more different ways. That I can use my precious favorite gun for that one important shot kind of pales when 95% of the gameplay hours are spent having my loadout dictated to me. It's like the Bourne Conspiracy phenomenon of doing rather mundane stuff to build up the adrenaline meter and then executing the awesome takedowns. I find it enjoyable, but ultimately flawed because I spend most of the game waiting for a chance to do something cool rather than actually doing something cool. It sounds like we mostly just have different philosophies regarding ammo systems in episodic mission-based gameplay, but hopefully that explains mine better. Which is exactly why Obs *has* to make CQC effective in its own right (in theory). Players need a way of getting close to enemies (for example, appearing unarmed and non-threatening, sneaking up on people, darting between cover, bullet-time, etc), then once they close the distance they have to be able to incapacitate enemies effectively. Punching out every enemy in the game would probably still be a point of pride rather than efficiency, but being able to wtfpwn any lone enemy that gets close to you could still come in handy. I find myself wishing I could CQC all the time in cover shooters when the AI overruns my position or simply cowers in their own. Basically, the way to balance CQC in a game with firearms is to have it be quick, effective, and to allow the player methods of closing with the enemy without getting shot. I suspect that each of these applies moreso as Thornton improves his chop socky skill. The key from a balance standpoint is that while simply shooting the enemy would work, CQC would prevent the enemy from shooting you.

In theory, infinite ammo is wildly unrealistic. In practice, it isn't any more contrived than carrying 200 rounds in your coat pocket or checking nearby easily-broken barrels/dark corners/baby strollers for the five bullets you need to continue. There are games like Drake's where you need to scrounge from the enemy, but I don't see the inherent fun in being stuck using the same weapons or robotically running over every corpse/dropped weapon to magically replenish my ammo. It also simplifies the process of balancing stealth/CQC/diplomacy with the John Woo approach. Simply put, the other options have to own to be worthwhile when they cannot be justified as ammo conservation tools. For an example of lame implementation on the grounds of ammo conservation, I point out the iconic FPS knife. On reloading, it seems to me like a reasonable tactical consideration. Reloading is something that can happen in a reasonably short timeframe, while running out of ammo is usually a long-term issue unless you procured on-site (which Thornton doesn't do, I believe). My final thought is that Thornton would always bring "enough" ammo with him. That this is a ridiculous amount is based on him facing a ridiculous amount of enemies (for a lone guy). Maximum realism under the circumstances he'd probably have to live off the land, but what fun is the fancy new scoped pistol if you only get to use it a few times in the mission? There's nothing inherently wrong with ammo conservation, but the way most games handle it is not my personal cup of tea.

Heh, I don't know if creativity described my method of saving Paul

Well, even CIA people retire/get exposed on national news. That somebody worked for an intelligence agency at one point isn't really a death sentence by itself; what's done is done, and how likely is it that a widely-known former agent will go back into the field? Now, if they claimed responsibility for the JFK assassination while living in the U.S., that might cause them trouble, but it isn't that uncommon for retired CIA people to come clean with the truth to a certain extent. And no, I don't think that the CIA killed JFK. From what I've heard (from various MAists and security professionals), Barry Eisler is supposedly legit, but I haven't actually seen the documentary yet.

Wait, we can't pick up dropped weapons?

Hmm, I agree that it's good to see frequent improvement during gameplay, and I tend to favor innate abilities vs. fancy gear (though no harm in having both to a certain extent). The problem with having a many-tiered equipment progression is that you find yourself buying fancy expensive stuff to counter the effect of tougher enemies, the final result of which is pretty much the same gameplay experience as before. Also, in addition to the spy trapping of having high-tech gadgets, there is also a time-honored tradition of spies making do with whatever is readily available. If gear becomes increasingly important, the "start with nothing but wits and fists" character concept will become increasingly obsolete as the game progresses. The counter-argument is that if equipment differences are too subtle than there's not much point in upgrading, but I don't see this as a huge problem. Particularly in a modern setting, equipment seems to me like something that should be more preference/playstyle and what is best for the situation than switching from a +1 item to a +2 item. Army of two did a good job of not having one weapon be overwhelmingly better than others while maintaining functional differences between them. Regarding the skill progression, what I've read about AP seems to be on the mark. You improve in the various skills as the game goes on, and progressively unlock new abilities as you go. And, as a minor feature, can we restart the game using our old skills/equipment?

Cool. Soooo, dives?

I don't recall any ground fighting in Roadhouse . . . also, I'm pretty sure Swayze uses Kung Fu even if he did train with MMA fighters. The basic tools of punches/kicks/throws/knees/elbows can be put to use in all kinds of situations. The reason MMA gets a bad rap is because they are usually trained to go to the ground with somebody as a normal strategy rather than last resort. This is often dangerous if there is either: 1) a non-friendly surface, eg pavement littered with glass (I've had youtube warriors tell me that they'd never touch the ground when they do groundfighting . . . right) 2) other people present who may or may not intervene against you if they think you're winning. 3) a weapon the guy plans to use if he gets in trouble. You could probably come up with more, but those are some of the big ones. They don't teach any weapons stuff, but they don't claim to either. The skills of MMA can be used elsewhere, it's just the strategy has to be altered. Very often it's the MMA mentality of "winning" and habits from sports competiion that are more the problem than the actual techniques (granted it's just a collection of techniques from other arts). And no, I'm actually not a huge fan of MMA, but I wouldn't say MMA is bad for self defense so much as many MMA fighters are bad at self-defense. I will grant that there *are* many people trained in MMA who freely acknowledge the limitations of the sport and either cross-train or say "I'm screwed if that happens," (the best of whom probably do both). No, MMA will not teach you how to control somebody's weapon arm while disarming/throwing them away, but it does teach basic striking mechanics, takedown concepts, and useful skills for escaping the ground if you do end up there.

Stranglehold was pretty explodable. Not a realistic fashion, but still . . . If you want to talk about the king of gimmicky destructible environments, Fracture anyone? *uses the covering system*