FishFace

It would work either way - if there are female guards, it's something different, something that adds depth and draws you in. If there are none, then as long as there's the discrimination, it also adds depth, event though it's not quite so different... With that out of the way, I like the idea of guard ranks - it makes for much more realistic customisation of difficulty for the FM author. In some circumstances, you want the Thief to be able to sneak around unnoticed - moss patches acting like in T1/2/3. Seargants and captains mean you can have more realism, without restrictions.

First off, I like the idea of a weapon-drawn guard dropping his weapon when KOd - it's realistic, difficult and it's an incentive for you to not alert guards. Second off, I suck at designing AI, never mind implementing. I have no comment.

The solution is simply to make tapping forward (or the equivalent) non-silent, but quieter. If I want to move quietly across a tiled floor without putting socks on, it's quite possible to do it in such a way that I don't sound like a freshly shod horse. Perhaps I'd slide my feet forward instead of picking them up, or replace them on the floor veeeery slowly. Either way, the actual clop-clop would be virtually nonexistent, but there would be a small rustle or such.

That's a) subjective and not the whole argument. Variety is more than adding alternative methods to whack people, it's about variety of gameplay. That said, I do see your point, oDD; hopefully TDM will have enough variety from different level design techniques without having to resort to allowing less stealth. And with THAT said, I still support the idea of a weapon that'll get you out of a sticky situation, because it's unrealistic for a thief that good to be arrogant enough to believe himself better. While not necessarily 'pedigree' - for example, a well blended mix of stealth and action, it is necessary for gameplay to be appropriate and balanced. Clearly, an arcade game and a WWII simulator do not work together, so just a big mish-mash of genres will suck. You need to at the most pick a few, if not just one.

There's not much that separates non stop sneaking from non stop killing. While I prefer Thief to Doom, that doesn't mean all that should be present is sneaking, because it will get boring. Something needs to be in there for a bit of spice, change the pace and so on. Remember why Doom sucked - because it was all the same. Admittedly, they had a more boring subject matter to begin with, but it's all part of game design. If it's not going to be weapons and items to provide an alternative to sneaking, what's it going to be?

M-M-M-M-M-MONSTER KILL!

I'm doubtful of the effectiveness of a dagger against a guard in an emergency situation. The reason I'd support having a shortsword is that then you have a HOPE of getting within the guard's reach, whereas with a dagger, you'd have your arm sliced off. A dagger is not a weapon for attacking guards except for stealthy kills; it irritated me that it was possible to kill guards toe-to-toe in TDS with it. As far as toe-to-toeing goes, it ought to be somewhat more tricky. "You are not a tank," but your enemies practically are While I don't think the idea of having nothing to save your butt is a good one, in TDS attacking the enemy was a valid tactic

Did headshots not count for arrows? (I can see it now, smack a guard with an arrow in TDM and we'll have an announcer saying "HEADSHOT!" over the speakers)

My eyes, restrain yourselves to PMs!

What you call canalisations are probably the canals in the City - there's no such word But yes, dropping a body in there does fail the mission on expert, and it's the same if you through someone unconscious into a fireplace... Or off the balcony in LotP

The thread was sarcastic, heXen, spawned from some dolt suggesting the same thing on TTLG, but seriously. I don't *think* anyone here's stupid enough to suggest such an idea...

Yes, this is why you don't get dynamic shadows with lightmapped stuff. The models in the lightsource I think are lit approximately dynamically, i.e. they light up in accordance of how near they are to the light sources. What they were probably referring to would be how shadows are rendered - you take an image of the player and so on as seen by the light, and project it onto the objects as a texture. Well, the second holy grail would be infinite detail, then. It would look shoddy if you had beautiful lighting but the same old polygon limits.

Hmm... How would it look odd? surely it'd be the same as if there were two dynamics, as the light from the dynamic would blend with the texture generated from the static... I would've thought the problem would be dynamic bits and pieces that wouldn't cast shadows.

In TDS they overcompensated for IW, and everything felt like it was glued down - it's just a case of tweakage.

That's the point, though, if you're unconscious and the Thief's done it properly, there's no indication that there was any violence. Often, if not always, it would be assumed that they'd fainted, or collapsed, not been hit. I mean, would you go around screaming if you found someone unconscious? No, you'd take their pulse and try and revive them. Perhaps you'd find a medical person or even ring an ambulance in some cases, but you wouldn't assume they'd been knocked unconscious. On the rough, tough streets of The City, it would not be VASTLY different. In some situations, yes people might be suspicious, but most of the time, naa.

The thing is, people are less likely to go ape when they find someone unconscious, because people do just faint, or collapse. It'd be more realistic (unless there's a huge bruise ) for them to be sat up in bed, carried off and splashed with water, or whatever, rather than everyone screaming.

For another apparently good 3D modeller, check out Wings. I haven't tried it as much as blender but lots of people recommend it

Technologically, they're only as crude as we were quite a while ago. Language-wise, we have no idea what their language is like. Looking at chimp society is probably something like looking at human society with Autism. Just because it's impossible or difficult to perceive does not mean it is not complex. Your reading and writing means you have a correct view, not a normal one. When using a term that has more than one meaning, you have to specify which. In classical terms, freedom of the will IS freedom from the will - not in correct terms, but that's not what whatsisface was using. Basically, we have the same amount of control as an amoeba has, because there is still no Freedom going on. An amoeba is free to be controlled by itself, as we are free to be controlled by ourselves. We control how we control ourselves, but that is still only free, so where is the change in control/freedom?

Well, they need some way of escaping, otherwise they just reload as soon as they're spotted. If you make it impossible or so difficult it's not worthwhile trying to get away with mistakes, then people will reload as soon as they make them.

sorry, forgot my <sarcasm> tags! I actually like the idea of water beasties, although it's unrelated to my views on swimming guards.

Critically, "do we see..." We can obviously not see the finer points of chimp or parrot civilisation, because we are not chimps, nor parrots. This is (one of) my point(s). We cannot state here nor there whether other animals express this to the same degree we do, because we are incapable of knowing whether we understand their behaviour enough. The very fact that when we previously thought we were supreme beings, but have discovered that chimps have some behaviour remarkably similar to artistic appreciation, should drop the hint that we're still discovering things about animal behaviour. Allow me to address this and the "chemicalprocesses == you" bit at the same time. The problem is, when people say "control" they usually are not thinking about the chemical processes that comprise us, they are thinking of some fuzzy "self" that is separate and supernatural - mostly without thinking about it. Now, you are absolutely right that we cannot be controlled by anything other than our brains, which is a determined object. However, you must realise that in general terms, "free will" DOES refer to us being free from a determined brain, governed automatically by chemicals. Said degree of control, however, does not (in my view) change anything. It is still automatic, and does not create this classical view of free will. Nor does it really create a nonclassical one, as you are still determined, automatically by the brain - you had a nonclassical free will without this "second tier." However, it obviously does change the way we operate, allowing us this reflection. What is important is that it is the reflection that allows people to latch onto a will free from the very thing that in fact makes us us. This is what the "great unwashed" fail to grasp. We could argue all day over whether a second tier of will gives us any degree of freedom, but we're certainly not arguing over indeterminant freedom, which is what it appears most people have somehow grasped hold of. This is where it gets semantical - no, not perjoratively - it depends on ones one perception of the concept of freedom. It's certainly not the indeterminant freedom that most will come up with - and the general use of the term in such a way is enough for me to not use it in that way. Nonetheless, I see where you're coming from when you use it... I'd just use something more flowery In short(ish) yes, I do feel free - I am governed by myself and nothing else. Said self is determinant, but it is still free. But not Free. Well, actually I do feel Free, but I am pretty sure I am not.

"I believe someone who dies to protect/save someone is truly altruistic, as they would not be able to reap the benefits of pride or satisfaction." While they live, they have the pride and satisfaction that they're attempting this deed. The thing is, we don't choose to do anything unless our brain thinks it's best... Genetically, giving your life is only valid if it is your offspring, or people who are a quite closely related. In wars, this extends to your people - perhaps this is some genetic cohesiveness, i.e. if race x lays their life down, for each other, race x survives. Alternatively, it could be either an extension of the favours back principal gone wrong, or a favours to your offspring idea.

Altruistic genes will only be furthered if you are altruistic towards other altruists. If you have a small number of altruists in a population, then their actions will not further the altruistic genes, so they will be eradicated. Although said genes would further the species as a whole, since they don't further themselves, they will go.

Surely those in the puddles would be dispensable with a *squish.*

I think some of those can be knocked off. You don't need limbs to carry around objects if you have a prehensile tail or maneuverable mouth (dolphins, anyone?) And I don't think an omnivorous diet is necessary.