Humodour

Yes, half-assed comes to mind. But it *is* just an expansion after all... You can't target an improved invisible creature, so you can't remove their immunity, I believe that's the problem? True Sight? Anyway, ToB was originally meant to be BG3, but they seem to have just gave up and did a half-assed Xpack instead. That's why I installed Ascension - hoping it'd add a bit of life. But as it stands I'm struggling to find purpose to continue BG2 normal - it's all just too easy... but more than that, it really is boring. Maybe I've just played chapter 2 way too much. Yea, I'll go to spellhold and sort things out.

In my mind the thing we may not be banking on is that a system other than combat accounts for the variety and strategy lost to unlimited ammo. Say, this occasionally referenced superspy/superhuman abilities and feats system. Still, I suppose even then I'd still want limited ammo (nothing wrong with even more variety and strategy options).

Complexity is only good if it brings something to the game. The thing I'm hoping for is that Obsidian is removing unnecesary complexity as I outlined in my earlier post. Ammo is only usefull as a game mechanic if it is scarce and/or has great variation by design, if such a design vision has never been present in AP then it is only logical to remove it. The article that mentioned unlimited ammo also mentioned introducing things gradually to make the game easier to get inot, this suggests that there is complexity in the game, just not in the ammo department. I remember back in the days of the development of DX:Invisible War when it was first announced that IW was going to drop the skill system and aug system used by Deus Ex. A lot of people really screamed and whined that it was a horrible thing to do and would diminish a lot of what made DX such as interesting game. And at the time, I was one of the people who said: Trust the developers. They must know what they are doing. Even though they appear to be reducing the game from the original in a bad way, they will do somethign to make up for it. And you know what? I was wrong. And all the people who screamed and whined like babies were absolutely right. The developers design decsions completely hosed IW. Ever since then I've come to believe that gamers actually have a claerer understanding about what makes games fun and intersting than developers do. Mostly becuase gamers are generally only driven to desire fun games while develoeprs think about things like marketing and demographic appeal and maximizing sales potential. Does anybody think IW is a superior game to DX? This is exactly the reason I'm not liable to support an unlimited ammo decision. As soon as I hear "Obsidian is trying to streamline everything" I think back to the exact same words spoken by Warren Spectre and co about DX:IW, which as you state did not turn out well. That said, I wouldn't say gamers have a better idea of design - just that sometimes there are issues that you should really listen to them about (and sometimes really shouldn't).

[quote name='H

I just watched the first part of Silence in the Library. Hah, funny episode. I like Moffat's style. My other favourite episode this season was The Doctor's Daughter.

I have my favourite weapons that I would like to pre-dominantly use through the game. For instance, the ones I take with me along for the mission. If those "run dry" Then I would need to find another weapon somewhere or stay out of sight/trouble so I don't actually need a gun. So having limited ammo would add greater depth to the gameplay, tactics, and how realistic the developers wish to make the game. As I've stated in another thread I prefer mostly realism in action games. But I'm not going to miss out on a great game if it isn't 100% realistic. But then-again, I wouldn't buy it if it isn't realistic enough. Things to consider when playing: - Do you take extra ammo at the expense of extra weight? - Do you have enough ammo to run through levels guns-a-blazin'? - Would you really go in guns blazing if the bullet damage is realistic (which I read it is), meaning you can die pretty easy?! - Can you pick up more ammo/weapons along the way? - Do you save you ammo for emergencies? - Would you really throw your gun away if you were a spy infiltrating somewhere? After all, you aren't supposed to be there and wouldn't want to leave a trace. Like I said, limited ammo can add a variation of different game play styles, where-as unlimited only ever encourages one, run-and-gun. Which in my opinion isn't really fitting for a "spy" game. I know; I was agreeing with you.

Love his face in this one! The asymmetry of his grin is beautiful.

Thanks man!

If you don't want to use the weapon you like, you could, you know... change weapons. I don't understand why you would want to be forced to use a weapon you don't like. That seems backwards. Variety and boredom are fairly well-worn concepts both in games and human psychology in general. It makes a lot of sense to give incentives not to use the same weapon the entire game. I presume you've also played a game, such as Deus Ex, where you've used multiple weapons, and no doubt felt it is more fun when you have variety. I accept that there are those out there who are content to use one weapon the entire game and will get angry if they have to change, but I don't think Obsidian is trying to cater to people with ASD.

Wow that's stretching my memory... RoT had unlimited ammo? Didn't it also have little golden symbols you could eat? But love the trampolines.

To be honest I support the decisions Obsidian is making. We haven't seen how the work yet, for the most part, and if it really turns out badly, they'll learn from that for their future games. Not to mention that in the end, Obsidian's goal is first and foremost to make a fun game. It's not as though Obsid is going "oh, the fans are going to like all these changes we make"; they're aware some won't be popular, so they wouldn't include them unless there was a reason to counterbalance the initial scepticism (I hope). I have a feeling, for example, that Aliens and Alpha Protocol will be two very different games, as a sort of experiment in what is actually entertaining, despite what people might rationalise as entertaining.

So I'm finally replaying BG2 again as a fighter/mage/thief (after BG1 I took like a few weeks off). Strangely, the game is dead easy. I think it's because every member of the party has stone skin, iron skin and/or mirror image, except for Viconia, who has an AC of -8 and 65% magic resistance, not to mention in battle everyone pretty much always has 18/00 strength and haste. I'm playing on the hardest difficulty, but I guess that only really matters if they can actually hit you. Highlight of today: Nalia scores a critical hit for 50 damage to a slaver. She's a level 10 mage. She likes to walk around as a mirror imaged, stone skinned, hasted ogre and beat people to a pulp.

Yeah, I can't see how this so-called 'stance' system is at all conducive to diplomacy, bluff, intimidation or manipulation (in terms of being able to CHOOSE these from various DIFFERENT approaches) - in fact I can't see how they'd tie in a speech skill at all, cause there's little predictive ability. And I hope they include the ability to move bodies in the final game. Dare I make the claim that all this streamlining is just to win over the konsole kiddiez? Hype! Knee-jerk reaction! Mayhem!

I also look forward to Alpha Protocol 2.

So did myself and others. But apparently if you watch the previous episode again she wasn't with Roslin and co on the baseship.

Good point. Edit: In fact only the links were removed, so they are still at their original flickr location, bypassing the need for me to host anything.

I went into offline mode and retrieved them from my cache. I'll host them on image shack in a second.

Damn straight, Xard. Signed. Although I'll give some time to MCA and co to explain how they are tackling the issues you bring up. If it's just in there for a bit of experimentation, however, no way. It irked me about KOTOR guns that they didn't run out of ammo, but they were weird laser/blaster weapons and it was part of Star Wars, so I put up with it. But real world guns that fire bullets and normally have various different weapon types, instead firing unlimited ammo? It doesn't fit. It certainly doesn't fit the spy genre.

Geez, I know which one I'd choose.

Uhg, Xbox achievements. Anyway, it sounds like there's some good and bad stuff. I'll follow AP cautiously. And a time-limit for dialogue? wtf? Glad to see dialogue is unpredictable, though... I think I enjoy that. Unlimited ammo... hmm I'd be far more annoyed if this were an FPS. We'll see. Can't pick up enemy guns? Um... Direct link to the scans: http://seganerdsforums.com/index.php?PHPSE...g25807#msg25807 Edit: Oh and thanks sharks, and lol @ funcroc being involved yet again.

It's a big stretch to say all do it, but he specifically mentioned christianity and they have done it for Apostasy. a) I did say groups have done it in the past in all religions b) No, he didn't mention Christianity specifically c) It wouldn't matter if he did; I'm atheist and hold Christianity up to no particular pedestal Of course, and that's why on another board I find myself defending Islam and giving examples like Turkey as proof that it's not incompatible with democracy and secular thought any more than Christianity is. However, by the same token, one can definitively say that a vast majority of the human rights problems with the Middle East are due to literal enforcement of Sharia law and the accompanying strict condemnation of secular thought. In the end more than anything I would like to see the decay of Sharia law and the separation of religion and state... as in Turkey, which is still 98.5% Muslim. No it doesn't. I was just curious if there was hidden motives in singling out Iran (with a tabloid like heading no less) Some countries that have had such practices for a long time: Afghanistan, Comoros, Mauritania, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen. They rarely make headlines though. Oh, nope, no reason. Other than that Iran is well known and powerful, and this change in their penal code is recent; a focal point for the discussion; an example with which to bring awareness to the issue. I essentially implied this with the last line of my OP.

Nope, Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity have no such doctrine for apostasy; only Islamic and Jewish holy books dictate the death penalty, and the latter hasn't practiced such for a long, long time. Though obviously various groups have in the past persecuted converts, it's a big stretch to say all religions punish apostasy with death - especially in today's era. And finally, yeah, it might depend on current power and influence, but as long as Sharia law remains influential, can you honestly see this changing any time soon? If anything it seems like a move to further prevent change in such states. Moreover, does it somehow diminish the abominable nature of such a doctrine even if it might be lifted some time in the far future?

So it looks like the gay Muslims that convert to Christianity are extra dead. But don't worry, if you're a woman you may only face life imprisonment. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7264810.stm Honestly, after everything Yuusha has said about Iran being overblown and hyped up, I was actually hoping it might really be improving.

That's what I was thinking - I can establish a base in the attic until I've figured things out. Zombies can't climb well can they?

Clearly you will be first to be eaten when the revolution comes.