Slowtrain

Are all those faces premade by the devs or are they created by the player?

Too bad that the supposed Jagged Alliance 3 is going to lose a large chunk of the open world concept. A mod of an existing game might be the best hope. Still no word if FO3 is going to come with a construction kit, afaik. I really hop it does. Seeing what the fan community could produce with the assets of FO3 and a construction kit would be pretty interesting.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111798676...d=1238&cs=1 Coincidence? The similiarities between the most brilliant minds at Harvard and the denizens of this board are frighteningly.... something.

What is the D&D equivalent of an M24? ALso how does one make it magical? M24 + 5?

I enjoyed Farcry more and Crysis a lot less. Farcry was simple. Run around cool island maps with guns and shoot things. It had a plot of some kind that i don't really remember, but the jungle settings were always fun. Crysis was the same in a lot of ways except somehow much less fun and far more boring. Maybe it was just because it was more of the same (plus a supersuit) or maybe because my otherwise respectable computer was only able to run the graphics on medium and on medium, Crysis is not an amazingly-looking state-of-the-art game, it is simply okay but nothing special. Reading the reviews of Crysis, it's hard to see what all the fuss was about (quite literally). It only confirms my opinion that most professional games reviewers are shills and idiots. Although it's no doubt hard for a developer to put so much into a game with such cutting-edge graphics only to see sales collapse due to piracy and what not, i'd have a lot more sympathy but for the fact that i forked out hard-earned cash on what for me was a very average-looking game that was in most other respectives deeply meh. I enjoyed them both for different reasons. Farcry was a bit more light-hearted. I loved the mercs as enemies. In Crysis I enjoyed messing about with suit and using it in different ways to cause assorted mayhem. In both cases I found the second halves less fun than the first halves. I think both ganes were remarkably light on anything resenbling a narrative that was in any way compelling. In view of Crytek's recent compaints about the failure of Crysis it wouldn't surprise me to see them drop the system requirements and up the narrative depth of their next game.

Interesting. I purchased both Farcry and Crysis and enjoyed them both more or less. However, unless there is a little more depth in a new Crytek title, I would be passing on it. I really don't need to play the same game a third time regardless of how splendid it looks.

My apologies, Xard, if it came across in any way as saying the questions you (we) are asking is stupid. That was not intended. I personally think the question is very valid. And I am very much "on your side" so to speak as far as some of your concerns go. I just think we've all seen enough situations on boards like this over the years in whcih the same ground keep getting walked on over and over again, and after a certain poitn nothing worthwhile comes of it, and eventually the devs just start tuning it all out. They way I see it, the explanations have been given with as much depth as we're going to get for now, and we simply have to be OK with that, cause we're not goign to change. DOwn the road as new info is revealed I'm sure the discussion can be reopened. Plase take no offense.

I whole-heartedly agree with the action part. Even though the combat isn't great; it is good enough and the in game action is generally fluid and enteraining. I don't know about the adventure part though. The scaling system really takes a chunk out of any sense of adventure since there is so little threat or reward in adventuring. Adventuring in Oblivion is more like a sight-seeing tour around Cyrodil. Theer are some neat views and stuff, but it gets sorta boring pretty fast,

Well, the devs have done what we asked: they came aboard and gave us some rationale. To berate them anymore over this decision is somewhat useless and may inhibit further dialogue. We just have to see how it turns out. As I have said previously, I believe the a finite limitation on ammo in every possible way (carrying, acquiring, anything) is ALWAYS preferable to the opposite regardless of game type or genre. That's just my take. However, if there are enough interesting things in a game, unlimite ammo is hardley anything close to a deal breaker when it comes to enjoying a game. I look forward to more info on the tone and feel of the game in the future. Thnks to all the devs for their reponses.

The only real problem I had with MW graphically was the awful bodies and faces. Especially the faces. Once I played with the better faces and better bodies mods, there was no going back. The enviormnmental graphics were all quite good; the ash storms were cool, the rain was cool, even the water looked pretty good. And it did have a lot of atmosphere. Oblivion is very pretty (although I do think the water looks better in MW) but it really lacks atmosphere. Maybe the setting was just too generic? It will be interesting to see where they set the next ES game. I'm guessing either the swamps of Argonia or the Sumerset Isles. I think Argonia would be pretty cool.

2nd page. Read thread THEN pretend you know what you're talking about. Becides which, you're arguing that infinite ammo in ME is realistic for the setting and that it wouldn't be for AP, so you're pretty much just generating 100% mouth-poop again by saying that this has nothing to do with realism. I fully demand the right to use the world realistic in a relative sense! Is more real than a loaf of bread? Or less real. That's how I look at it. lol

That, sir, is cold. lol.

Well, no. I would like to see the weapon and the holster as seperate objects and the player character actually places the weapon in the the holster and the holster actually holds the weapon as a separate object. The weapon could fall out. Or it could be removed by an NPC. Shoulder straps though could be more cosmetic than functional. They really don't have to do anything other than appear to be holding the weapon in position.

That does not change the gender, Xard. It sorta does though. Sex is biological. I believe gender is considered to be more sociological.

haha. Probably not! Hint: no it wasn't the unified ammo or the lack of reloading or lack of leaning. Where we go with this no one knows!

OK, NatS. I thank you for the info. You are a good source for things like this. I learn quite a bit from yoor various posts on cdoing. I apologizee if my own post was a bit twitchy in response. You kinda ruffled my feathers with the ignorance remark. I plead guilty. But no big deal really.

That wasn't actually directed at you and Obsidian per se. I just used your comments as a basis for my own idle comment. Thank you for responding though. That was very nice.

Dude, wtf? A lecture in coding? gafl. I KNOW they are hard to do which is why we haven't seen them. I was merely remarking I would like to see them. They mean more to me than other grahpical features. Get over yourself.

OK thank you, that is something at least. More than DX:IW had anyway. lol. eh, I'm probably in the minority when I put forth the following amazing concept: sometimes realism is fun. A lot of times actually.

I'm just waiting for the day when player characters won't have their weapons attached to their bodies with velcro. Are actual holsters and/or shoulder straps to much to ask for? I'll take those over hdr any day.

@Hell Kitty and Spider, those were some interesting points. Thank you. I would still like to see some developer explanantion and or clarification on the issue, cimply because I am kind of confused about what kidn of game Alpha Protocol is suppsed to be. But I guess we will all find out eventually, won't we? I do believe that streamlining is something that has just become SOP in modern games as developers chase big sales and mass appeal, but I would hate to see ammunition got the way of the bedroll and the food in crpgs or games in general. I personally do believe that streamling will be with us for a while but will eventually hit a point where the pendulum swings back the other way and fattenign your your games will become the selling point. Or so I hope. I'll personally always hold to the belief that a fat game is better than a streamlined game, even if neither one is perfect.

I hate to say it, but I smell the same odor as well. Whenever developers do something like regening health, infinite ammo, unified ammo etc, I always wonder first and foremost if this is something they are doing because they believe in it from a gameplay standpoint? Or is it really because they don't want to be bothered dealing with implementing and balancing ammo drops? Its a terrible thing to say, really, especially since I have no evidence that such is the case, but I do always wonder.

Well, regardless of whether you are for or against infinite ammo, I would simply like to hear a developer clarify the rationale behind such a decision. Mostly because this would help me understand a little better what kind of game Alpha Protocol is going to be. I simply may have been working under a incorrect understanding of the direction I thought the game was going to go. I am also curious about this idea that special weapons are needed for bosses. That also doesn't jibe with the what I understood about the gameplay. A serious spy crpg that draws inspiration from Syriana or even Kill Bill shouldn't really require any special waepons to kill bosses. Any ballistic slug thrower should do just fine. WHich makes me wonder exactly what kind of bosses the game will have that an AK or shotgun won't dispatch. Cyborgs? Aliens? Demons? Again, not what I expected. The game is going to be what the game is going to be. I have no delusions about that. I would just like a little more info if possible. edit: my atrocious spelling is out of control.

No it doesn't. In Oblivion skill affects magnitude and duration but not the percentage chance of something occuring. In Oblivion the chance of something occuring is based on player skill with the GUI not the in game skill numbers for the pc. Which makes it more like an FPS. And FPS games don't have skills because they aren't necessary. WHich is kinda my point about Oblivion. edit: Clarification: success rate doesn't always depend on skill with the GUI. Some skills have an automatic 100% success rate. Alchemy for example. SKill affects potion duration and magnitude, but you always succeed when making a potion. Your talking about choice by the human player to play a certain way. I don't disagree. I can do that in any game whether its a crpg or an FPS. I don't need skills to play that way. In Oblivion I can put blade in a minor slot and be just as good and effective with a blade as someone who puts it in a major slot. SO what is the point of the different tiers?

I agree. My reaction to infinite ammo was due to my understanding that this game wanted to be a somewhat serious and "realistic" ( I use this word reluctantly) spy rpg/stealth thingie with a lot fo dialogue and intrigue and subplots etc and so forth. If it is going to buy more of a run and jump and shoot action rpg-lite game then the infinite ammo concept isn't quite as silly. I do think infinte ammo is pretty lame under almost any circumstances. I mean even Doom had ammo pickups. NOLF and NOLF 2, which were prety lighthearted stealth action rpg lite games had ammo oickups. Come on. Its not a terribly sophisticated thing to put in a game. The only advantage I can see is that not having to implement and balance limited ammo saves some dev time to implement other thigns elsewhere in the game. (of course I said that about IW as well. ooops). Otoh, if this is going to be more of a serious spy game than I would think it would be much more interesting to make ammo extremely limited, the complete opposite of the infinite thing.