PETITION: PLEASE CHANGE THE INFINITE AMMO DESIGN

[Cycloneman]

2) Not running out of ammo is lame. If I wanted to not run out of ammo and have to kill all my enemies with a weapon that I like, I would be playing Unreal Tournament.

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.

It all depends on what you expect from the game I suppose. I like having choices (and consequences of those choices). If I choose to gun everything down as a solution, I better put some effort into filling up my pockets with ammo first.

I like having choices too. I don't like being forced to buy a million billion bullets because I like a particular gun and find most of the other ones annoying.

I am not sure that there are different weapon specialisation skills. If there isn't then that would be a moot point. You better be prepared to either make a run for it or start practising your kung-fu when the gun goes <click> <click>

I don't need to be prepared to make a run for it or use kung-fu because the game has infinite ammo.

[Pop]

I don't remember the last time I ran out of ranged in a non-shooter. Usually you'd stock up so heavily on ammo that it became a non-issue. And AP isn't going to be a Jagged Alliance game where there are 30 different types of ammunition. Baddies will be using the same sort of gun you do. There's not much reason why ammo rationing should make it into the game as a matter of practicality. The most serious thing I can think of is the problem that Rise of the Triad had. If you got the machine gun you had no use at all for the pistol (though given the games of the time it was by design and not considered unusual) AP could easily get around this by making weaker, slower weapons useful despite the immediate advantage of having an M2 or a combat shotgun. Given that this is going to be an RPG that shouldn't be hard at all.

 

However, there is something distinctly odd about a game being literally like Rambo, where the main character can fire a machine gun continuously for 30 minutes and never have to worry about hearing a click. More recent sci-fi themed games have gotten around it by limiting fire via weapon overheating, but we're not going to have that luxury.

Edited June 1, 2008 by Pop

[Cycloneman]

However, there is something distinctly odd about a game being literally like Rambo, where the main character can fire a machine gun continuously for 30 minutes and never have to worry about hearing a click. More recent sci-fi themed games have gotten around it by limiting fire via weapon overheating, but we're not going to have that luxury.

They could use ammunition clips, just infinite ones. I don't have a copy of the magazine in question, so was that ruled out?

[Pop]

having a Bottomless Pocket of Clips is no less absurd than having a Bottomless Clip. You just have the gunfire punctuated at regular intervals with the sound of reloading.

[Cycloneman]

having a Bottomless Pocket of Clips is no less absurd than having a Bottomless Clip. You just have the gunfire punctuated at regular intervals with the sound of reloading.

Yeah, but it prevents spamming bullets constantly, which is also the purpose of weapons overheating in "recent sci-fi themed games."

[Hell Kitty]

They could use ammunition clips, just infinite ones. I don't have a copy of the magazine in question, so was that ruled out?

 

It doesn't mention that specifically, it just says you have unlimited ammo except in the case of very special weapons. I see no reason to believe they'll opt for a bottomless clip over a neverending supply of them, with reloading serving the same purpose as overheating.

 

The article also mentions that currently you can't drag bodies around to hide them (which I'd like to do more than limited ammo), but they are willing to change that if playtesting suggests people want it.

Edited June 1, 2008 by Hell Kitty

[Humodour]

If it worked in Rise of the Triad, it can work here.

 

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.

[Humodour]

2) Not running out of ammo is lame. If I wanted to not run out of ammo and have to kill all my enemies with a weapon that I like, I would be playing Unreal Tournament.

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.

[Scorpion1813]

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.

 

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.

[Meshugger]

/signed

 

And oh, you run out of ammo in Unreal Tournament as well.

Edited June 1, 2008 by Meshugger

[Humodour]

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.

 

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.

[Hell Kitty]

where-as unlimited only ever encourages one, run-and-gun.

 

That simply isn't true. If the game features stealth options that fun to play, then people will choose those options. Hitman: Blood Money is a good example this, you can play stealth as a ghost or an assassin, or you can play guns blazing FPS style.

 

Perhaps you are unable to help yourself when faced with an unlimited or large ammo supply, but don't assume every player is the same.

[Gorth]

/signed

 

And oh, you run out of ammo in Unreal Tournament as well.

I stand corrected. With my average lifespan in that game, it appeared unlimited

[sharkz]

Signed.

 

I'm sure they could come to some kind of compromise, like having the first gun you get in the game unlimited ammo but it is really weak.

 

They could just make it so you're REALLY unlikely to run out of ammo because you have so much.

[Hell Kitty]

They could just make it so you're REALLY unlikely to run out of ammo because you have so much.

 

But then why even bother having a limited supply if the chances of running out are so slim?

 

If they do change to limited ammo, then I hope no weapons feature an unlimited amount, and our inventory space is limited, forcing us to choose between more ammo or more weapons/items.

 

Personally I just want every game to copy the inventory out of RE4.

[sharkz]

That is ture! If you run out of Ammo you should be forced to do stealth kills and melee combat until you find some more. What I ment was that it should be made that it is unlikely that you will run out of Ammo if you are using it wisely.

[Tigranes]

Definitely signed, it's generally better to have limited skills, fewer but more challenging opponents and situations of scarcity in almost any RPG-ish game.

[Scorpion1813]

I know; I was agreeing with you.

 

Oh, I was using that to explain this:

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.

Which I didn't explain very well. Sorry. what I meant was I have my favourite weapons that I would like to pre-dominantly use through the game, but if those were to run dry I would like to have the option of picking up other guns or ammo.

____

 

That simply isn't true. If the game features stealth options that fun to play, then people will choose those options. Hitman: Blood Money is a good example this, you can play stealth as a ghost or an assassin, or you can play guns blazing FPS style.

 

Perhaps you are unable to help yourself when faced with an unlimited or large ammo supply, but don't assume every player is the same.

Like the above comment I must have miss-worded it or not explained it enough. I try not to ramble too much.

I never said it forces or tempts people, I meant it encourages wasting ammo. This does NOT mean everyone will do this, just that more people will unknowingly and more likely stray away from the sneaking (possibly after being spotted once) and just go all out with guns. Regardless of how good the games stealth mechanics are.

Just for the record, I will not be tempted by it. I prefer stealth and I absolutely hate run-n-gun! I prefer things more realistic, and one guy taking on an army in a gun battle (and not dyeing), is not realistic.

 

Not to mention, it takes less thought to just run around and shooting everything that moves, than it does to sneak past people, maybe taking a few out if necessary. Deciding to kill, stun or leave them be. Deciding by what means would be the best for taking them out - would a silenced shot be best or is there a way to get close to them and bash them with something solid to knock them out.

[Moatilliatta]

I must admit that I would be willing to sign this "petition" if it is simply about streamlining stuff and making it less challenging.

 

The way I see it unlimited ammo could be a good choice if you want a situation different from the Deus Ex (which is a game that did ammo scarcity quite well). In Deus Ex all the guns were used to a degree because relying on a single gun would lead to it running out of ammo and as such you would have to make a choice or be forced to, this was fun because it made you change your style of play and was fun while doing so.

The way I would like to see AP going is that the guns should demand use in that the player would want to use a specific gun for the level or situation that he is in because it's a good idea and not because he is lacking ammo.

 

As Pop points out, non-infinite ammo is rarely done well since it has to be a conscious design choice to actually have effect. You couldn't just stock up on ammo in Deus Ex by buying from stores with unlimmited quantities (or large enough to be practically unlimited), so the only way to run out of ammo in most games is to forget to buy and that is a major annoyance that I would rather not meet.

[Scorpion1813]

guns should demand use in that the player would want to use a specific gun for the level or situation that he is in because it's a good idea and not because he is lacking ammo.

 

I really hate the words "have to", "forced", "linear", "demand" when it comes to games. This is next gen and the new generation of games it that players can play a game who they like.

I do agree that a gun may be "suggested" for a specific mission because it would be a good idea to use it. But I do not want to have to use it.

Apparently the missions can be completed however the player wishes, if so we should get to choose which weapons, and how many weapons we wish to take.

 

Also, something I read in a magazine (where I first heard about this game) is that your actions effect the storyline and you may gain access to thing by playing a certain way. For example if you tend to shoot lots of people you will gain access to a contact on the black market (I'm assuming an arms dealer so you can buy more weapons).

 

I don't see where everyone keeps coming up with the thing about being forced to change weapons and use all the weapons in the game at some point. You may carry 2-3 weapons on your characters person, therefore you mamy only be using 3 guns per mission, and you can choose to use those 3 again every mission. Or if you ration bullets, you may only need 1 gun throughout the whole game.

 

But if ammo was limited it could replenish each mission. So for each mission you automatically start with a certain amount (this could probably work for the missions where you are working for the CIA, they would provide the ammo at the start of each mission),

[Moatilliatta]

@Scorpion1813

I meant demand in a way that a gun should be very suited to a level/situation by design. The player should obviously still be left with the choice, especially since there could be multiple answers to the question of which gun to use.

 

Edited for direction.

Edited June 1, 2008 by Moatilliatta

[Hell Kitty]

just that more people will unknowingly and more likely stray away from the sneaking and just go all out with guns.

 

You're still making a criticism based on how other people will play the game and as such that criticism just isn't valid, because you simply don't know. "I wouldn't do it but other people might." We really have no way of knowing what play style will prove most popular, especially since we don't really know a great deal about the gameplay just yet.

 

I prefer things more realistic, and one guy taking on an army in a gun battle (and not dyeing), is not realistic.

 

Based on the article they are going for "exaggerated realism" so this is probably the sort of thing we will see in the game, and we often see in games whether they have limited ammo or not.

 

Not to mention, it takes less thought to just run around and shooting everything that moves, than it does to sneak past people

 

People often say this, but I really don't think it's true. As a huge fan of stealth gameplay, I'd say it really just requires more patience than thought.

 

The way I would like to see AP going is that the guns should demand use in that the player would want to use a specific gun for the level or situation that he is in because it's a good idea and not because he is lacking ammo.

 

That's exactly what I want to see. That is, certain weapons are better suited to particular situations, and making a poor choice would only make thing more difficult for you.

Edited June 1, 2008 by Hell Kitty

[Slowtrain]

This is next gen and the new generation of games it that players can play a game who they like.

 

I assume by who you mean how.

 

And yes, that is so next gen. Totally.

[Slowtrain]

If the game is being marketed as a rail shooter or something, then I guess unlimited ammo would be fine. ALthough even then I think having simple pickups would be better.

 

Other than that I don't see why having unlimited ammo is any advantage in a game. To me it just seems like another example of games becoming streamlined and stripped of any possible depth. One of the paradoxes of much of next gen game design is that even as we develop the technology to create more complex gameworlds than we once had, we seem to be going out of our way to make our gameworlds less complex.

 

 

 

@pop: No.

[Xard]

Anti-signed, because:

1) Realism? In this game's combat? Are you guys serious? It's a game which specifically draws on action movies for its combat. Your character can shoot a bunch of people in a row right after popping out of cover if you get the right skills (he can presumably do just as much ridiculous **** if you get other skills). Is that "realistic"? Come on.

 

2) Running out of ammo is lame. If I wanted to run out of ammo and have to kill all my enemies with a weapon that I didn't like and purposefully chose to avoid, I wouldn't be playing an RPG where I have individual weapon specialization skills.

 

3) Running out of ammo is lame. It's not fun to end up scrounging around an area you've already cleared for a minute just to have a handful of shots in order to avoid/recover from running out of ammo.

 

4) Running out of ammo is lame. It's not like its somehow "tenser" to have "only" three hundred bullets for your machine gun. This isn't a survival horror game.

 

5) What's worse than your character running out of ammo? Its corollary: that your character can't store large amounts of ammo. Come on, it's really annoying to have a big bunch of ammo just lying around but lose it all because, oh yeah, you can only carry four bullets for your gun at a time.

 

6) It does not remove strategy as long as weapons remain fairly lethal. You still had to use tactics in Mass Effect despite having infinite ammunition, because any number of enemies can kill you very rapidly if you just spam bullets at them. Okay, that's only on higher difficulties, but the point stands.

 

 

1) 99 % of games draw from action movies. Yet only small percentage of these feature infinite ammo. Games with realistic combat aren't even numerous enough to mention dozen but realism isn't the point here. Just because something isn't searching for realistic approach doesn' mean it should use stupid one either

 

2) In RPG's when you take your specialization far enough you can bring your enemies in matter of few seconds. Infinite ammo is self-defeating in here too. It takes one bullet to kill Random Terrorist 01 on high levels and it takes five bullets to kill Random Terrorist 01 in low level. With infinite ammo it doesn't matter at all.

 

If you want to run through game with blazing AK-47 be my guest. Just don't except anyone else in here wants game to boil down into point where one game style and one or few high damage weapon overcomes all others. These kind of things have been always controlled by giving limited amount of ammunition for high end weapons. Alpha Protocol is doing version of this with "special weapons".

 

Now unless "special weapons" includes shotguns, AK-47's etc. common weaponry - which I'm sure is not the case - it means such powerful weapons have unlimited ammo. By going common developing principles shotgun should be 1-2 killing machine, AK-47 or your other random assault riffle should be lethal by burst of ammo etc.

 

This means limiting ammo for "special weapons" (I hope they're not in style of "plasma cannon") doesn't mean anything because you're able to take out your enemies by your normal weaponry with couple of shots. There's no reason to use these special weapons.

 

Unless they fall for design decision this approach forces them to, namely weakening damage of your common weaponry. With unlimited ammo this means you must spend whole clip on one enemy on average with weapons like AK-47.

 

I've played such games and they completely take the fun away. Anyone who plays FPS's knows nothing is as annoying as guns without any impact or ****.

 

I don't want another Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines where you must empty round of .38 in police officers face before he goes down.

 

And it's no reason to have unlimited ammo just because you specialize in certain weapon/weapon type

 

- Fallout (specialization, limited ammo)

- Arcanum (specialization, limited ammo)

- Bloodlines (specialization, limited ammo)

 

3) Again unless you use Rambo tactic with constantly shooting such situation shouldn't be too likely. Accurate, short burts with your AK-47 should be enough to bring your enemies down and after fight you could just loot their bodies to recover most of your lost ammunition. You could also buy ammo from the shops.

 

Let's take example from game which has quite bad combat mechanics but it works as example for this point - GTA San Andreas.

 

When you're in middle of gang war trying to conquer new territory for your hood you can be sure there'll be loads of defenders armed with high-end weaponry.

 

If you take approach afore mentioned - aiming, short burts, headshots etc. - it should't be too hard. If you manage to minimize use of the bullets you end up with more bullets than you begin with after looting.

 

However if you take the "let's just shoot until everything is dead" you end up out of ammo for your big guns. Have fun fighting waves of assault rifles and SMG's with your pistol.

 

In infinite ammo design this doesn't mean anything. Find cover and shoot from there to the general direction of enemy. They'll go down eventually

 

4) This is not survival horror game but this is agent game. Special agents don't take down entire fortresses with their unlimited ammo supply. Rather they use tactics and skill if forced to fight. Not the minigun they nicked from nearby helicopter

 

Metal Gear Solid's are still godfathers of modern "spy" games. Let's use as example the original psone one (as that's the one I'm most familiar with) game.

 

If you get spotted you can be sure you're in for trouble. If you're lucky enough have ammunition and gunpower enough so you can take down first one or two waves of defenders rushing against you with their FAMAS'ses blazing. However this only provides you temporary time of safety during which you must find place to hide in ASAP. Otherwise you'll be eventually gunned down or you run out of ammunition which just postpones inevitable if you're later spotted again and end up under assault.

 

In late game if you've secured for yourself a famas and many clips of ammunition for it you CAN take down the (already determined, I think it 3 or 4 at least on normal difficulty) amount of enemy strike teams send to take you down. Once you've dealt with them all alarm mode eventually goes off as there's no one left to search for you. This approach however results for you with considerable amount of damage taken and loss of ammunition. As you can't loot your enemies there's maximum of few times you can take this approach in short period of time. After few of these kind of encounters you're out of ammo and rations (to get your health back up), meaning you're in deep **** if you now get spotted.

 

After you complete the game you get FAMAS with unlimited ammo supply. With it you can practically blaze the whole game through.

 

Same in MGS2 and MGS3. In second game encounters with enemy squads are even more deadly as they're equipped with shields etc. They're not unwinnable but challenging enough and if you head from such fight to fight you end up just like in MGS1 - in trouble as you've ran out of ammunition and other equipment, making direct combat the very last solution.

 

 

In MGS3 you get M16 with unlimited ammo after you complete the game. With it you can just shoot your way through the game way more effectively than in MGS1 as you can aim from first person, making game essentially easy shooter.

 

Now let's take other game, Deus Ex

 

I must infiltrate to the military base. I have my loyal silenced SMG and buckshot (aka shotgun) ready, both with enough ammo to take down an army. On the other hand I have things such as silenced pistol, tranquilizer darts, my nano-sword...

 

Now I could go in with direct attack approach. Or maybe I could bust that defense station not far from me and hack the turrets to do the dirty job for me? Or then I could go on more subtle, agent style approach by sneaking in and silently taking out guards. I choose latter. I hide from huge guardian bots and cameras,deal with lonesome guards with my silenced arsenal and loot their bodies for more SMG rounds etc. untill I have reached my ammo carryin capacity (6 roundw with 30 bullets in each round)

 

Whew, now I'm in base. Unfortunately I stumbled upon route that is nigh-impossible to go through without considerable skills in hacking to deal with cameras. My skill level isn't quite good enough so I can't help but take the risk.

 

ohgoddamnit I was seen. Alarms go off and whole base seems to be after me. Thank god I had chosen stealthier way before as I now really need this extra firepower. I run and try to find cover in mazelike corridors, shooting my way through men in blacks, soldiers... In the end I emerge victorious. My SMG and buckshot have been pretty much emptied of all ammunition but I took out dozens of enemies, meaning there isn't any considerable resistance in the area left. Soon I'm in next level.

 

Now let's go through this situation again. This time I've spend my skillpoints on hacking. I deal with guards outside by turning turrets against guards. Inside I manage to hack all the cameras offline, making sneaking through the area a lot more easier. One guard spots me but before he manages to make alarm I've already dealt with him with my silenced pistol. And now I'm in next level.

 

let's go through this situation one more time. This time we go in like real men. Enormous gunfight results in outside but I win in the end and ender military base. I still have ammunition left but there's no way I can go through even half as big enemy force as in outside and inside there's enemies double the number of outside guards. As I don't have any skillpoints in hacking I must be extremely careful with cameras.

 

I manage to my own surprise sneak through and get to next level.

 

I try this approach again but this time cameras spot me and gunfight starts. I simply try to ran away and only shooting the people I absolutely have to. I ran out of ammo and am forced to use my trusty nano-sword with which I manage to cleave my way through. Now I'm in the next level out of ammo and desperately in need of medpacks or aug canisters to get power for my regeneration implants again. Wait, isn't that maintenance building over there? Maybe I can sneak there through that tunnel...

 

 

 

 

 

All 3 very different approaches. All can work and all can fail. Now what happens if we're given infinite ammo here?

 

 

I have no worries about running out of ammo for my SMG or buckshot so I just rush in and quickly dispatch all enemies outside. I go inside, build cover from metal boxes and let myself to be seen by camera. Then I just shoot shoot shoot shoot and shoot enemies as they reach opposite end of the corridor.

 

Not fun, not strategic, easy and boring.

 

5) I didn't talk anything about limitting how much our character can carry ammo did I?

 

Ammo capacity is unique for each game and set to suit the purpose of the game. That's something Obsidian should decide. If small ammo capacity is best for the game fine, if big, fine.

 

MGS had big ammo capacity but you could still run out of ammo, same with many other games. Heck, it's possible to run out of ammo in nearly all shooters if you utilize tactics you'd use with infinite ammo design

 

 

6) Haven't played Mass Effect but I very, very often hear as long as you ain't complete idiot you can just gun your enemies down utilizing Gears of War method. And Mass Effect is scifi game.

 

As for gun lethality I've talked about it earlier.

 

GoW gameplay is insanely repetitive too and by no means favourable approach to the game. Not to mention it most of the time doesn't entail the "kicking in with blazing rifles" way that OE employees seem to buff as one approach.

 

Mass Effect combat also looks not too agile and smooth, instead favouring the current GoW cover-shoot-cover (boring) method. Something that doesn't seem to be case in Alpha Protocol judged by interviews.

 

Not to mention it just isn't right combat mechanics for spy game.

 

To quote myself "In infinite ammo design this doesn't mean anything. Find cover and shoot from there to the general direction of enemy. They'll go down eventually"

 

 

--------------------------------------

 

Infinite ammo steals meaning from stealth and melee approach. Why one would ever bother to melee (if not for change of pace) as you can just shoot your enemies from other side of map with your sniper rifle with unlimitted ammo supply?

 

And why bother with cumbersome, slow stealthing when you can just bust in everywhere and kill anything with your twin Gatlings of Doom +1 ?

 

where-as unlimited only ever encourages one, run-and-gun.

 

That simply isn't true. If the game features stealth options that fun to play, then people will choose those options. Hitman: Blood Money is a good example this, you can play stealth as a ghost or an assassin, or you can play guns blazing FPS style.

 

Perhaps you are unable to help yourself when faced with an unlimited or large ammo supply, but don't assume every player is the same.

 

I haven't played Blood Money but in previous Hitman games it was by far way too easy and favourable tactic to just walk in and shoot everything unless you played with most hard difficulty as weapons didn't do even remotely enough damage on you.

 

Add that with AI stupidities etc. "FPS style" was normally the easiest approach. Something that IS NOT right for assasin or spy game

 

edit: few spelling mistakes and forgotten words

Edited June 1, 2008 by Xard