Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by KeyFox

  1. It can be argued that we walk a fine line between democracy and fascism, as well. There are proponents both ways. In any event, policing is about a balance, between civil liberties and procedures to keep us safe. For example, I really don't like the whole cameras on every corner approach, or using defense surveillance satellites for criminal surveillance purposes unless there's a warrant, at the very least. The US FISA court is outdated and needs to change, but it NEEDS to be there. Indiscriminate tapping, bugging, reading mails and such is not kosher, and I for one don't think it's necessary or viable. Would that sort of thing have stopped 9/11? Only in dreams. US intelligence had knowledge of such a plan, overseas, but didn't think it was to be implemented here until too late. And the intelligence and law enforcement sides (of even the same agencies) weren't communicating with one another. There's enough blame to go around, but really, it astounds me that people want to point at the folks defending them and blame them for this attack when, well, duh...it's the folks that bloody well attacked us that were at fault, yes? And now, we are going WAY far afield.
  2. Speaking as someone familiar with American law... We have a Constitutional right to own firearms. We do NOT have the right to bear them around. Every state and even different cities have their own statutes on what's legal for Joe Citizen concerning their weapon. In Arizona, everybody has a gun rack in their truck, and it cannot be directly corrolated, but they have less VIOLENT crime. That does not mean that Arizona has less overall crime, mind you. Next, individual states have laws concerning burglary. In California, if you feel an imminent threat to your life or the life of others in your home, you may fire in self defense - and basically, they're very lax on what constitutes an imminent threat when one is inside your home. In nearly every other state, unless it can be proven that you were truly in imminent danger, if you shoot someone during a burglary, YOU will be the one charged. We have ridiculous cases on the books of burglars falling down a flight of stairs and suing the homeowners for not maintaining their property! The American 'cowboy' image is certainly one that seems to pervade the rest of the world, but not so much here - depending on the part of the country you live in. And no, the carrying around of arms comes from much earlier than that - the Second Amendment's clause is there to maintain a standing militia in the event of foreign invasion. It is the single most controversial Amendment in the US Constitution, followed closely by the First Amendment. On the question of arming police - there are valid points on both sides of the argument. I know the history of the bobbies and such, and in large part, was impressed with the fact that they did not carry firearms. That said, and having been through a police academy myself, police officers are taught specifically to resort to their sidearm as a last resort, or instantly upon imminent threat to a life. There is an escalation process, and it is very concise, but cops are humans too. Sometimes they get rattled, sometimes they make bad decisions. The real difficulty with cops in America is that studies prove that 95% walk the line, are good cops and do their job and do it well. It's a fairly thankless job, too, so really, more people should be thanking the police...but who likes the police? Even I didn't particularly like police (long story). It's the 5% of 'bad apples' that wind up on non-detailed, whipping to frenzy 6-minute spots on the evening news. And those are the ones that get the attention and drive the fervor. That's not to say that cops are perfect and shouldn't be watched, it's just that sensationalism in our journalism causes more issues than it solves. We have occasional laws banning assault weapons and the like, but really, these laws only affect law-abiding citizens - which means it does nothing helpful to prevent the weapons from falling into the hands of those we're trying to prevent them from. It's not helpful in reducing the problem of gangbangers wandering around with a pair of semi-automatics in their sag. Nor is any other gun-control law. Why? Because by definition, the people using them to commit crimes are CRIMINALS - they don't care about the law they're breaking to begin with - or if they do care about it after the incident, well, that's fine, they can think about it in a cell or on their wait on Death Row. And the penal system is let another can of worms with its own issues. And, I think we're digressing a little, but, well, so?
  3. No, I think this one thread is enough to cover the bases, both psychological and sociological, as pertains to this topic. It'll just be a long thread. I'm a student in Justice Studies, covering many aspects of law enforcement, and required coursework in sociology and psychology, amongst other things. So all of this is rather pertinent to my field and something that's fresh in my mind every day. Thank you.
  4. And I contend that even if it is taught that it is NOT acceptable, a child may still be prone to violence and carry that into adulthood. It's proven. A child brought up where they are taught law, consequences and the like is still capable and even likely to engage in aberrant or criminal behavior. We call it 'acting out on repressed impulses' and dismiss it, but that happens a LOT.
  5. This is a theory, and one of many, in both cognitive and sociological models. It seems plausible for the most part, but then explain to me the sociological development or learned behavior of a sociopath? You can't. Psychologists can't. Criminologists can't. They can theorize and define what we call a sociopath, but not how one becomes one - just traits that allow us to attach the label. That said, the 'cycle of violence' that passes on from one family to the next is certainly proven as valid, but not always. A child growing up in a violent household does not necessarily perpetuate that violence on their own family when they have one. And sometimes, the pattern skips a generation...so how is that explained by learned behavior? Parents and guardians are strong role models, given. So are peer groups. But the behaviors need a basis to form upon, and that, IMHO and those of several criminologists and sociologists, is instinct. So, you're both right - it is learned behavior to an extent, and it is genetic as well. A child growing up in a perfectly pastoral household can still turn out to be Jeffery Dahmer, and a child growing up in the Manson family can still grow up to be Mahatma Gandhi. The potential for either is within all of us. I feel that yes, there is a lot of power and control in violence, after all, we see it in sports all the time - dominance is a genetic imperative, not a learned behavior. HOW we dominate is learned. And in our case, playing violent video games, we get a thrill out of cutting loose from the mores, laws and structure of our society and just plain dominating through some of the most brutal forms a human animal is capable of in warfare. We don't get into the REALLY ugly aspects of human behavior during wartime (or even peacetime), and I'm sure I don't need to cite examples. It feels good to just do it, when we know it isn't acceptable behavior out in the real world and there would be consequences. In video games, we gamers police ourselves, by and large, and even there we have structure and rules, and not complete anarchy (unless you're playing Last Man Standing - and even in those sorts of games, there's rules).
  6. So, as I said before in the aforementioned thread, personally, I believe that there's a killer and a saint in all of us. The killer is the stronger imperative, and we need to let that aggressive nature out in things we do. Luckily enough, we have many non-lethal aggressive fashions to simulate what we want to do. War is fascinating to many, even those that proclaim what a bunch of sick freaks wargamers and FPTS/FPS gamers are. So the real question is: why is warfare so fascinating? Sports are competitive. Business is competitive. We have a billion bits of aggressive us vs. them in our daily lives, so why is this so engrossing? Soldiers that have been in real combat will tell you what it's like and we're rightly horrified. Yet, something happens like 9/11 for example, and suddenly our civilized veneer is stripped away...we want blood for blood. Tragedies like VT and Columbine make us ill and calling out for stronger, harsher measures...If the offense touches us deeply, we'll go to extremes - it's the animal in us, yet unlike any other animal except in rare aberrations, we are capable of killing for the mere fun of it. We've all felt the feeling of wanting to just reach out and crush some offensive person, or the feeling that real suffering needs to be brought to some individual for a loathsome crime and so on. We do feel a thrill at watching movies with exciting action scenes, getting caught up in the feelings of combat and carnage, even though we know in a fashion it isn't real. There are many arguments that say that violent tv shows and games desensitize people to violence, perhaps to a degree it might even be true. Not to the degree that the ultraconservatives think it is, of course. Personally, I'm glad I have things like video games and such to act out any violent, aggressive impulses in a safe, sane environment. That may be a rationalization, but so what? I enjoy my games and I have fun, which means I'll keep playing them, and keep playing them with folks who have similar interests.
  7. Replay value and moddability are big points for me when getting a game. Graphics - everybody loves the eyecandy. Gameplay - without solid gameplay, I won't play it. Simple as that. But if a game is good and I had a good time with it, I'll come back to it years later and play it. Likewise, if there's the ability to add mods and a good active modding community, playing is virtually endless. Look at Oblivion, for example. And certainly the R6/GR series'.
  8. Healthy expression of a violent and/or aggressive impulse, demonstration of power, etc. The psychobabble is endless. Numerous stories and theories exist, studies have been conducted and so on. Numbers don't lie, but they can be shaded to twist facts, too, remember that when looking at a survey and the like. I could say something like this: inside every one of us - male and female alike, though more concentrated in the male - is an instinctual predator waiting to cut loose. Everyone has the potential to be a monster just as much as a saint or a pacifist. In a video game, only pixels die and are reconstituted over and over again. In reality, well... But is this what it all boils down to? I don't know about that. There's a hundred different factors going on in any one individual as to why they play a video game to begin with, then a shooter, and then an FPTS. Is there a common denominator? For many, perhaps, but it doesn't play through for everyone. Yes and no. We're more discussing the marketing, developing, publishing, and design fundamentals that go into the development of the FPTS genre games, and the impact of the consoles upon development between the arcade-feel games and more 'tactical' feeling sims, directly leading to the question of different development between console and PC platforms. Admittedly, why we play these games directly impacts marketing and design, but still, that question in and of itself is one for its own thread, IMHO. Because it's like asking: why are we here? It's more philosophical and abstract than a concrete question, and I'm sure everyone has their own theories, religious implications, moral views, psychology, sociology, anthropology, telepathy from outer space, whatever, about it.
  9. It is an interesting question, but again, a can of worms best left unopened, or at least, a tad off-topic for this thread. Feel free to start a thread on it if you see fit, but not in this particular discussion, please?
  10. This is the heart of the discussion, truly enough. There is such a thing as too much, there is too little, there is not enough of this or that. But it all falls flat without a solid backbone to work with first. What I've always found great about the R6/GR franchises, frankly, is the fact that after market, we (and by we I mean those brilliant folks who like to tinker around with the guts of the product) can modify it to suit our desires for more/less/better/tweaked. This is the overriding reason I choose to get R6/GR games on PC rather then 360 - because we can change it to suit us later on down the road. That's magic, boys and girls. Is it hard to do? Yah, you betcha. And sometimes the tools are difficult to use, or hard to come by. But someone out there with a lot more time, money or both than I have has gone to trouble to figure it out and make a change. Good, bad, whatever, they do it and figure out how to make it work. To the modders: cheers, lads. Thanks for your work.
  11. *sigh* You will have to forgive me if I come across as harsh, but I am really tired of hearing this one... Whenever this topic comes up, someone invariably goes to this extreme on the other end. First of all, as previously explained, I can't enlist even if I wanted to, to those who say enlist. I'm a cancer survivor, if you must know and more, I don't really want to kill people even if it is sometimes necessary in the course of whatever. My hat's off to those who have had the opportunity and temerity to serve their respective countries. We're well aware that true warfare is not fun and games, thank you. Yet, here we all are, playing games that simulate death and carnage, and lets just not open up that particular can of worms, okay? I think of games like these more like airsoft or paintball, just more graphically simulated. Next, when we as tactical GAMERS are referring to realism, what we want is generally well-employed tactics, bounding, covering, an AI that knows not to fire a GL at 5 feet from target, an AI that knows not to cross a fire lane or shoot right past your character's head, an AI smart enough to respond to tactics presented to it and plan accordingly to make a decent but not impossible challenge, realistically rendered weapons, damage effects on continuing to play the game for player or AI alike, realistic call signs, radio traffic, hand signals, group formations, entry methods, etc. No, not a single one of us wants to deal with watching our friends get blown to hell, or being alone in the bitter cold or heat night after miserable night, starving, low on ammo, behind enemy lines, the stink of rotting corpses of some children that got hit by a stray shell, etc. So please, folks, don't bother bringing those elements even into the conversation. That's just plain rude and insulting our intelligence - or at the very least mine. We are speaking of realistic elements of tactical warfare that make a good GAME. You can call it a sim or a game and split hairs if you wish on the definitions, but what we - in this forum, thread and context - are referring to is a GAME. "Rant off".
  12. Devs don't always get a lump sum deal with a publisher. Sorry if I was being misleading with my statement - I was referring to an established company, with employed developers on their payroll. They get their salary from their company rain or shine as opposed to free devs who pitch to a publisher on their own. And yes, all that other crud applies to the developer, but the already established company isn't paying out royalties to its developers, the IP belongs to the dev company, who sold it to the publisher, yes? This is what I was referring to, abject apologies.
  13. Thank Whatever for the power of NARCOM, honestly. I mean, really, there's absolutely no pressure on a time-critical stealth operation when the lead operator - in the middle of said operations - is constantly hounded by generals, supposed support personnel and good gravy, is that the Commander in Chief?! "Mitchell, you'd better haul butt, son, I know you don't have anything better to do right now than to pay attention to me screaming in your face!" *BLAMBLAMBLAM* "Sorry general, I'll get right on that!" "Hey Scott? I've got a bunch of footage that won't help you at all about everyone saying that we're really bad people and need to be booted back out of the country. Just thought you should know, makes for fine viewing. I know you're probably sneaking to cap that fellow there in the back of the head - I can see him on satellite right next to you - but I really thought now would be the time, and oh, by the way, I know I prattle on and on, but it's really great working with you guys. You know you can count on me, all the time. Gosh golly gee whillikers!" *phut* "What? Sorry, was a little busy DOING MY DAMN JOB to pay attention there, Beaver, did you say something important?" "Captain Mitchell, you saved my keister before down there, and boy howdy, I'm grateful. Now, while I know you're storming that bunker solo and we need you to charge in there as fast as possible even knowing that you have to use stealth tactics to get through the cubic buttload of tangos inhabiting it, I just wanted to let you know that millions of lives depend on you to get in there and take care of that nuke. In case you'd forgotten. I just thought it would be helpful if the most powerful man in the Free World - and incidentally the CiC, the one that ultimately controls every aspect of your life and owns your soul, soldier - told you what was at stake, again, while you're busy doing that for every American who will never know you ever did any of it for them. And with that, I'll let the general scream at you some more. Have a nice day." "Fantasitc. No pressure, Mr. President, thanks a load." Now we know why in TV and movies that the heroes suddenly develop 'static' and have to turn off their radios... Yes, I know it's part of the storyline. Yes, I know it's there for dramatic value. Yes, I know it's supposed to set up important plot points and redirection. But Hotel Sierra, SHUT UP! Give me an off switch, PLEASE! I don't mind getting my mission briefings that way, or even confirmation that my exfil helo is on the way, or reinforcements or what have you, but what team leader wants or needs a general constantly poking his nose into what he's doing, or how he conducts his operations at the orders of said general? Gone are the days of: here's your mission, good luck, we'll see you on the other side. This is the support we'll have available for you, call for it or we'll report it inbound. This is your discretion, get it done. Honestly. Having an option to turn off the rantings or the like would be exceedingly beneficial. Thank you for your attention to NARCOM. Six clear. [Merged with one of the existing threads on this - please check before starting new threads]
  14. I've played both. The 360 version is not BAD. It looks very pretty, it operates pretty much as advertised, but it is faster paced and geared towards assault rather than sneakiness. Sometimes that's cool. BTW, 360 owners, Summit Strike is backwards compatible with the 360 and plays well. Set to the highest difficulty settings, the SP campaign WILL kick your tail - it can be frustrating as hell, but worth playing if you haven't. In contrast, the PC version is slower paced (depending on the map, there are several with just plain waves of enemies, after all - stealth that!) and requires much more on the part of the SP commander in utilizing tactics and available cover for bounding, fire lanes, etc. Or you can set them on Follow like many do...
  15. The high cost of employing that many people on one project. Games may appear to make a ton of money. But development costs 3/4 of a ton of money. Hear hear. This is really it in a nutshell, lads. Profit margin. Games DO cost a heck of a lot to make. From that standpoint alone it is _understandable_ why companies turn towards what's going to make them the most cash fast - namely console games. Have you ever noticed that a 360 game comes out at around 60 bucks (US) and then stays that way, even a year or two later? Whereas, depending on the title, a PC title comes out at about 50, then there are usually sales and after 4-6 months, a good 60-75% of titles drop to about 30, if not 20, brand new and off the shelf? Major reason one why I possess less 360 games than PC games - available expendable cash. Honestly, I will fork over 60 bucks for a game if the quality is good and the draw irresistable, but really folks - that's a healthy chunk o' change. Games make a decent amount, I can tell you. But there is a LOT that goes into making them. Although, having been game QA at one company which will remain nameless, I know that most of the money for a given project goes to the dev engineers, who in some companies command ridiculous amounts of money for their salaries alone. This is not to diss any hard-working, productive dev engineers out there, boys and girls, but really, I have seen the seedier side too and it has rankled. For example, engineers who contribute very little to the actual code of a given project, get their full usual job perks AND their name goes on a given best-selling title. That's frustrating. And another story, I digress. A smaller studio, self-funded (like say, Id, way back when - and likely Blackfoot, now?) with a bunch of enthusiastic developers is much more likely to make a hit. Their motivations? 1) We get to put this together how WE want to, do it the way we envision it, with no one breathing down our necks but our own conscience and 2) direct shares in the profits, rather than a guarenteed lump salary - if it doesn't sell well, you don't see a lot of return, so do it solid and right and be responsive to your consumers' needs! My own observations, folks from Blackfoot can tell me different, of course.
  16. Again, to be perfectly honest, I still prefer GRAW over GRAW2, with an AI mod and the sepia settings reduced. But then, I don't play MP as much as I used to - certainly would if I could find a server with mature gamers that enjoy a good sim - that's another topic for discussion. Back to the topic at hand and I'll address some points in multiple posts. Blackfoot - Love it, all for it and I'll do whatever it takes to help out there (when and if I can, time allowing). I'm a Law Enforcement student (second time around, going back to college with the kiddies), and frankly, that takes up a lot of my time. I think Blackfoot has things on the ball and I'm eager to follow Ground Branch's development and production. PC gaming evolution - First, PC gaming is never going to die...until PC's do. I'm personally of the opinion that it will be only a matter of time before such things become more standardized and incorporated directly into the 'modern home'..but perhaps that's the utopian sci-fi nut in me. And well...generally speaking, there is a plateau that's steadily rising at which one can comfortably run the majority of games. That plateau is a combination of OS, video card, processor speed and amount of RAM. There are other factors that jump in now and again (internet connection speed, for example), but those are really the ones that control what games we purchase and enjoy - who wants to buy a game that they can't run? Sure, preference and genre are a big part of the market and control which games we wish to purchase, but wishing to purchase a game is not the same as being able to - if you understand my meaning. This is, naturally, a big portion of why the industry is how it is. Planned obsolecence and new technology. When I get a sim, I get it for immersion factor. Indeed, I play games for two reasons: to do things I can't do in ordinary life (whether because of finances, career choices, age, injuries, law, etc), and to enjoy myself. The latter is the bigger part, naturally, but the former dictates what sorts of games I'm interested in getting. Military sims - I'm not in the military, and I've always been curious about what it would be like to be a soldier (and no, I can't enlist, and you don't need to know why, but it's medical). So, I do a lot of flight sims, naval sims, and the like. But other games intrigue my sense of 'what-if'. I's sure you know the type..like say, the Hitman series. The Thief series. Etc. The fact is, wishful thinking aside, this is what our beloved industry has come to and we have to find ways to work the system to get what we as consumers desire. It is to that end that I am happy I have a place such as this to speak to like-minded individuals and brainstorm. Thank you, for your indulgence.
  17. For my own two drachmas, I buy a game based solely on the content, not who makes it or who publishes it. That said, I really preferred the support and attention that RSE gave to its consumers Way Back When, and I would've been just as happy to have left the R6/GR franchises in their capable hands. I'll pay for Ubi published games, because, well, I like the games. I have issues with some of them, and some games more than others. What I don't like is Ubi riding roughshod over a given developer and giving the Thou Shalt routine from on high because of the power of the almighty ruble. That's ridiculous. Let the developer produce a quality product the way they want and desire to, give them the time and support they need to do it well and the blessed thing will sell itself. What more could a publisher ask than to just distribute and rake in the profits? Is this so much of a reach? Let the artists do their thing.
  18. Again, I'll certainly agree with you on the points of the dev-publisher quandries. I still think if a given title is going to be intended for both PC and console release, two different versions should be developed from the outset and the rights sold for content to the publisher seperately so that each version has a decent enough budget to afford development. As it stands now, the reason we hear so much complaint from PC gamers over a given game's release date getting pushed back over and over while the console version has been out more or less on time is mostly due to porting issues and remapping code and the like. For as much as a 360 is essentially a souped-up graphics game PC in a nifty package, it IS a different animal, and porting to the PC is a lot like reverse engineering. And yes, again, having seen first-hand what control a publisher has over developers, it's ludicrous. But they who hold the purse strings control all, and we've seen that time and again. I concur with your assessment wholeheartedly, but it's not a solution so much as wishful thinking. A solution would be a way to GET the publishers off developers' backs and let them do their thing, then market and distribute. How do we - the fan base and consumers - put valid pressure on publishers to do so? The publishers could care less - if the product is popular and sells well, that's all they care about, and then they go and brag about how well their title is doing to all and sundry. Likewise, if they get complaints, it's not their problem, go yammer at the developers - and that really bothers me, personally, when dealing with tech support issues. If you're going to sell the bloody thing, take more responsibility for problems your consumers might have with your product. Your author/publisher analogy is spot on - if I go to listen to the author's lecture, or get a book signed or something, am I getting the publishing house rep's signature or listening to the rep go on at length about what went into crafting this story I just read and enjoyed? No.
  19. Ah yes, I hadn't read your interview, but I have been following Blackfoot Studios with considerable interest. And, well, is GR going to follow the way of R6? Most likely, the two are very similar these days, where when GR came out, it was to address specific style of play and be open, etc. I loved it. I loved Rogue Spear, and to an extent, R63. I'm waiting to see what happens with Ground Branch and the forums are full of interesting ideas and hopes.
  20. See, again, I KNOW what the driving factor is. These companies are in it to make a profit, pure and simple. And yes, from marketing views, you gear towards the biggest audience and make sales. Believe me, I know it. I'm more concerned as an end user - I'm willing to pay for quality. But that's just it - I want my quality entertainment to BE quality. I'm not saying that GRAW2 isn't - it's a fine product. But I'm a believer in the philosophy that one builds and crafts a superior product first and tailors it to that niche market to suit their needs, and lets the success speak for itself and draw the customers to it. So-called 'sleeper hits' are in just this sort of category, and that is generally WHY they are sleeper hits. They aren't mass-marketed to the same extent, and the quality surprises folks - whoo, this is fun, I didn't expect that, hey everybody, play this, it's fantastic! That's simplistic, but you see what I mean. And generally, I'll agree, I find many UBI games enjoyable and will continue to endorse them (and GRIN) with my business. I'm just really saying...I wish that folks would invest the time and effort to really know the difference between the two styles and IF a title is to be released for both, to consider that the two sorts of gamers might have different needs and cater to them from the start of development, rather than as a sort of add-in. And GRAW2 did that to an extent and I like that a lot.
  21. So, I've been perusing many of the gripe and praise posts, doing comparisons, playing, thinking and talking with others. As tactical shooters go, the PC version of GRAW2 is not bad. I'm still preferring GRAW, mind you, and I'm not going to go into the lengthy reasons why. But I thought I would address my own humble opinion on why it is that we seem to be 'lacking' in such venues as R6 and GR in recent years, and that - plainly put - is the advent of the console, specifically the Xbox. Don't get me wrong, I love my 360. But I love it for specific types of games, and tactical shooters are not one of them. I'm an old Fox, I've been playing games for a very long time and watched development of them. Shooters, well - Doom and Quake bred a certain kind of shooter player, and Halo and the like only compounded them. You know, the run and gun, spray and pray, bunny-hopping sorts of l33t gunners. And if that's your slice of pie, more power to you, it's not mine. I like to need to think about tactics, and overall strategy. I like to work with teammates to accomplish an objective. Makes the experience so much richer for me and a game that much more satisfying. I know there are many of you here that get my drift. So, where am I going with this? Well, see, I've been noticing that most of the tactical shooters have been released first for console and then ported for PC. I know that much at least because I've worked on game testing myself (in a professional capacity) and seen it done. If you look into code here and there you can see the remnants of Xbox controls and the like. GRAW2 is the first game I remember where it was actually called out that the difference between the console version and the PC version was (blah). And that led to my other observations, in comparing the two games and watching others play them. Likewise, the PC and 360 versions of Vegas. Sadly, it appears that by developing for the quick sale on consoles first and THEN porting to PC, many of the tactical shooters get 'dumbed-down' for the least common denominator - the aforementioned spray and pray'ers. And please, if you feel I am mistaken, let me know. But I feel that the time spent in between a console release and a PC port is only really fixing the code, not putting the 'intelligence' back into a given tactical sim. I don't mean to rag on console players, mind you, I just tend to know that your average low to mid-teen player of a given tactical sim doesn't care a bit about team playing, coop, tactical maneuvering or whatnot, they just want to blow s*** up and frag the hell out of anything that moves to prove their cojones are in working order. Indeed, you could see this sort of mentality even in MP games of Rogue Spear, and it really bugged the hell out of me. Definitely not my style of game, but again, if it's yours, more power to you. This is mostly just a topic for intelligent discussion in game development and such, not a flamefest. I'm interested in your thoughts and debate and welcome your comments.
  22. Wolf, that's very cool, thank you for sharing that. Most folks don't know the difference between cover and concealment, that's an interesting way to implement it in the game.
  23. Amen, brother. But that's another topic that we're still busy pounding to death, yah?
  24. Bugs: 1) In the quarry mission, I plant C4 on an arty piece, blow it and a track wheel bounces down the hillside. I wander up to the wheel and look at it and the C4 placement widget appears on it. 2) Mission 10, inside the bunker (haven't tried it elsewhere yet) after having picked up a G36, saved the game before going down a level. Had 8 rounds left in the mag, fired, reloaded and died. I reloaded the save game and looked down, an empty clip was on the floor. I repeated the action: fired off last rounds, reloaded, died. Reload save game, now there's 2 mags on the ground. Did it again, three mags.
  25. In Mission 10, as soon as we were on the ground, I made sure the team was in Assault (just in case the default setting wasn't working) and nope, they complained about taking fire and got mowed down...of course, being dropped by chopper right there didn't quite make a lot of sense to me, but that's my own armchair tactician rambling on in my head...
  • Create New...