528 réponses à ce sujet

[PHub88]

I prefer unlimited ammo (not for heavy weapons) simply because with limited ammo it still never became a problem for me...EVER...having to pick up ammo after the fight was just dumb...It felt like they added limited ammo in for the sole purpose of having to collect ammo after the fight...same thing with the fuel thing...there was NO point of having to buy fuel...you always had enough money..there was no penalty for running out...you where never restricted by fuel cap...so why even have it?

[JaegerBane]

Lumikki wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

I would actually prefer it if they'd gone with a hybrid of both systems - guns cool over time but you can reload as and when needed.

Yes, but this has absolute Zero meaning, is it cooldown or reload. Because both does same, create short break to shooting what has no real meaning any way. The real meaning of gameplay related, it's between limited ammos or unlimited. Because this affects what weapons you will use and how the combat feels in the battlefield.

It has zero meaning in the context of ME2, where everything was designed from the ground up to work with limited ammo - from damage levels to the fact that ammo is strewn over every level regardless of whether it makes sense that it's there (I mean, yeah, I can understand why mercs attacking me drop Thermal Clips when they die, but why on earth are ancient aliens and mechs cut-off from the galactic technology base dropping clips that mysteriously fit with my gun?)

A system where you could choose from conserving ammo by firing more slowly/'tactically' or burning your stock and risking ammo problems in exchange for greater DPS isn't meaningless in of itself.

[JaegerBane]

PHub88 wrote...

I prefer unlimited ammo (not for heavy weapons) simply because with limited ammo it still never became a problem for me...EVER...having to pick up ammo after the fight was just dumb...It felt like they added limited ammo in for the sole purpose of having to collect ammo after the fight...same thing with the fuel thing...there was NO point of having to buy fuel...you always had enough money..there was no penalty for running out...you where never restricted by fuel cap...so why even have it?

Exactly - some of this stuff felt like it was put in just for the lolz.

I also thought that the ammo levels just didn't have any consistency - stuff like the Viper and the Predator had an amount of heatsinks to allow a reasonable amount of shots for their respective guns, but stuff like the Mantis - which had so few shots that it didn't even benefit from the 10% ammo amount upgrade (as 10% of it's total ammo level didn't actually equate to a single shot) - just got a bit silly. Why would anyone bother carrying a large rifle around with them but only take enough sinks to allow them to shoot 10 times? Gordon Freeman/HL2 syndrome is what it felt like.

That said, this is part of the lesser internal consistency that ME2 had compared to ME1 - there was less logic and more gameplay reasoning used in the design of many things. It may not have made much sense (ok, fashioning tech mines out of plastics and omni-gel and using them to emit pulses of energy and signals is plausible - using a computer to shoot guided fireballs and blobs of frost was flagrantly absurd) but I did think gameplay benefited from it, so its not all that bad.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 26 septembre 2010 - 09:40 .

[BLunted]

I got used to it, but when I first played ME2 the ammo thing really irked me. I thought I was in store for a RPG, not a shooter as I have been historically crappy at shooters. The only gun I don't seem to run out of ammo with is the submachine gun, and I use both arm and leg ammo pouches.



Now, I just play chars that rely more on their powers(e.g. adepts, sentinels, etc...)

[Quething]

JaegerBane wrote...

It has zero meaning in the context of ME2, where everything was designed from the ground up to work with limited ammo - from damage levels to the fact that ammo is strewn over every level regardless of whether it makes sense that it's there (I mean, yeah, I can understand why mercs attacking me drop Thermal Clips when they die, but why on earth are ancient aliens and mechs cut-off from the galactic technology base dropping clips that mysteriously fit with my gun?)

A system where you could choose from conserving ammo by firing more slowly/'tactically' or burning your stock and risking ammo problems in exchange for greater DPS isn't meaningless in of itself.

You think people would like Jacob's LM more if there were no sinks anywhere on the planet, and you had to think tactically and use your powers and manage heat and let your guns slowly cool the way you managed your shields on Haestrom? Or people would have a better impression of the Terminator fight if it had a regenning shield that you had to save up ammo and go full auto to take down, because conserving heat just wouldn't generate the needed DPS? Situations that set up tactical requirements and made you strategize and use your resources in different ways?

Because I really do.

Modifié par Quething, 26 septembre 2010 - 09:50 .

[William Adama]

I've said this many times, ME2 went backwards in scientific development.



Consider this, in ME1 you had a weapon that fired 30,000 rounds before having to replace the ammo block. The only thing you had to manage was heat, and those could be nullified by purchasing high grade weapons with sink mods. A Spectre X pistol could go on forever without ever having to overheat. An UNmodded pistol would over heat in consecutive 15.6 shots.



"Fast forward" to ME2. The SAME caliber rounds were used from the ammo block yet this time the gun overheated after firing 5-6 shots (at an even SLOWER firing rate than the guns in ME1)! So if I were to put 2 soldiers together in a room, one with a ME2 pistol and the other with a Spectre X pistol, who would win?



ME2 weapons fire SLOWER and have to RELOAD between volleys, so the kinetic barriers have increased time to recharge between harassment.



ME1 weapons fire FASTER and have tens of THOUSANDS of rounds at the users disposal. Modding your weapons can negate heat issues and the wielder can CONTINUOUSLY fire at a shield until it collapses without having to worry about reloading.



And if a ME2 gun ran out of sinks, the weapon is USELESS. ME1 weapons don't have that issue.



Which gun would you rather have in a war?



Sigh... stupid.

[Epic777]

William Adama wrote...

I've said this many times, ME2 went backwards in scientific development.

Consider this, in ME1 you had a weapon that fired 30,000 rounds before having to replace the ammo block. The only thing you had to manage was heat, and those could be nullified by purchasing high grade weapons with sink mods. A Spectre X pistol could go on forever without ever having to overheat. An UNmodded pistol would over heat in consecutive 15.6 shots.

"Fast forward" to ME2. The SAME caliber rounds were used from the ammo block yet this time the gun overheated after firing 5-6 shots (at an even SLOWER firing rate than the guns in ME1)! So if I were to put 2 soldiers together in a room, one with a ME2 pistol and the other with a Spectre X pistol, who would win?

ME2 weapons fire SLOWER and have to RELOAD between volleys, so the kinetic barriers have increased time to recharge between harassment.

ME1 weapons fire FASTER and have tens of THOUSANDS of rounds at the users disposal. Modding your weapons can negate heat issues and the wielder can CONTINUOUSLY fire at a shield until it collapses without having to worry about reloading.

And if a ME2 gun ran out of sinks, the weapon is USELESS. ME1 weapons don't have that issue.

Which gun would you rather have in a war?

Sigh... stupid.

While I do not disagree with you however the change was not because of realism, it was done because of gameplay. Gameplay is more important than even realism or even lore. Go back and play Baldurs Gate. Minsc according to lore should never be a ranger, his intelligence is too low. KOTOR had vibroblades which were supposed to be rare according to starwars lore. 

On a side note if we are going on realism and science, me1 has it so the guns shave a bullet the size of a grain of sand off a dense block of metal stored in the gun . Now this begs the question, why do you never run out of ammo? Especially when you are shaving this block. 

[Terror_K]

Sidney wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Why don't they just provide two options: Thermal clips on (with limited "ammo") or thermal clips off (and the weapon overheats ME1 style). Then the player can choose to play whichever way they prefer.

And please... nobody say that it would go against the new lore, because the new lore was beyond retarded, made no sense and was filled with more holes than moth-eaten net curtains.

Because the heat sinks, holes and all, are better in terms of logic and in terms of gameplay and the lore to explain them makes perfect sense. A higher rate of fire at the point of contact is a massive edge in combat - history BTW has proven that. The USMC prior to WWII thought that their bolt action rifles were better because it forced guys to "aim" and what not but go figure just cranking rounds off with a semi-auto rifle was the best option in actual combat. The only edge to the overheat method is that it makes resupplying war awfully easy but worries about having to tote about too much ammo always lose to arguments more firepower in reality because supplying dead men doesn't matter.

That's complete BS in the case of Mass Effect. There's no evidence to suggest that the guns are putting out damage that noticably better with the new weapons. On top of that, you're forcing users to rely on a finite resource where before there was none. When a person doesn't have to carry something on them for their gun to work and all they need is five to ten seconds of waiting between shots rather than having to eject and replace an object it makes more sense to just wait than have to rely on something that can easily run out. That's like living in a world where cars don't need fossil fuels any more and just introducing it again to save drivers from having to stop and let their car charge up for a few hours every day.

On top of that do you really expect me to believe that in less than two years the entire known galaxy (and even some unknown parts) has completely converted to this new system to the point of extinction of the old one? In the real world America won't even change to the metric system in over 100 years, let alone changing to a universal new standard in less than two. Are we really supposed to believe that the quarians would make a point of making sure every weapon on The Migrant Fleet had the new weapons when their own ships are suffering? Are we really supposed to believe that every little scummy criminal on Omega would toss their very functional old weapon just to make sure they get a new one that relies on these clips? Are we supposed to believe The Collectors purposefully switched over to this new system too? What about Ronald Taylor: completely cut off from civilisation for 10 years, get they're almost making shelters out of thermal clips there. You honestly think that there wouldn't be pirate gangs and slavers out there buying up all these old weapons and using them?

And that's just the tip of the iceberg there. The whole concept is completely backwards and nonsensical. But then this is from the same people that brought us magical breathing masks that protect their users completely against  the vaccuum of space, extreme temperatures, hazardous environments and extreme pressures, as well as nipple straps that hold kinetic barriers and dispense medi-gel to the wearer somehow. Sure they took 3-4 years building a coherent, deep and well-through out universe before hand, but all it takes is one game to turn the whole thing into a pathetic farce when they contradict and **** on their own work.

Epic777 wrote...

On a side note if we are going on realism and science, me1 has it so the guns shave a bullet the size of a grain of sand off a dense block of metal stored in the gun . Now this begs the question, why do you never run out of ammo? Especially when you are shaving this block. 

You do, but it would take so long to go through it that, logically, you'd never run out while in combat and pretty much always get a chance to replace the block at some point between missions. I think the basic idea is that you replace it every time you return to The Normandy. Shepard also has to eat, sleep and take a dump now and then too after all, but we don't see it in-game.

Modifié par Terror_K, 27 septembre 2010 - 04:51 .

[Glory71]

Ahhh...nice topic! I've read from 1st to last. Each have their own valid points. There is the game mechanics, then there is the reality sense of it.

At "present" each firearm has a barrel life to it. Put in enough rounds and you'll notice a mechanical accuracy loss. Then there is also heat. The "kick" that prevents accurate delivery....then there is the *actual* battle reliability issue...weight (that is why the plastic aspect of modern "present" firearm is also being enhanced)...carbon build up...etc. Magazines are also being extended to hold more ammo.

Now projecting this to Shepards time...and the desire (at least for me) to immerse myself in the Mass Effect Universe; one would think that some if not *all* of this would have been addressed by then. Maybe it is better to limit the use of projectile weapons and rather concentrate on Direct Energy Weapons (even Iron Man have Energy Weapons on his hands...lol), Lasers, Pulse, EM, Plasma - 23rd century human technology ideas. There could even be some alien technology...like bio-engineered weapons (I don't know). An assault, sniper, or submachine gun version of a present day Rail gun (which can be only mounted in Navy Ships now) would maybe be more appealing...perhaps? Come to think of it...the unlimited ammo version of ME1 handheld weapons (I think) are improved versions of a present day rail gun (don't know for sure. Have to read back codex for it) .

All I know is that both ME1 and ME2 is NOT a let down when it comes to the story telling aspect of it. They are truly epic...no doubt. The biotic powers was also brilliantly conceived and applied. "Personally" for me, the only let down was the weapons. The design concept was unimpressive. Even present day assault rifles already have grenade launchers that CAN be attached to it anytime...in on the field (as long as you have it in your possession of course...lol). Moreover, a present day "real" Heckler-Kock XM-29 SABR/ OICW assault rifle is much better looking and offers more flexibility than the ME2 Mattock Assault rifle.

Again nice topic. 

Modifié par Glory71, 27 septembre 2010 - 06:23 .

[Captain_Obvious_au]

All I have to say is...what Terror_K said. Perfectly written and sums up my views nicely.



I'll also disagree about the whole 'gameplay > realism' argument, and really it irritates me whenever I see it. If you can't find the game believable, then gameplay becomes irrelevant. Especially when you're going into a universe, like Mass Effect, where so many things are established, you can't just ****** all over continuity and say 'oh we needed to do it to make the game better'.



It seems that very little thought was put into these sorts of decisions by Bioware, which is becoming more and more apparent as is the conclusion that they live in their own little bubble world, as evidenced by Casey Hudson claiming that ME players love mining in ME2.

[Sidney]

Terror_K wrote...

That's complete BS in the case of Mass Effect. There's no evidence to suggest that the guns are putting out damage that noticably better with the new weapons. On top of that, you're forcing users to rely on a finite resource where before there was none. When a person doesn't have to carry something on them for their gun to work and all they need is five to ten seconds of waiting between shots rather than having to eject and replace an object it makes more sense to just wait than have to rely on something that can easily run out. That's like living in a world where cars don't need fossil fuels any more and just introducing it again to save drivers from having to stop and let their car charge up for a few hours every day.

It isn't about damage it is about rounds. More rounds = more changes to hit and thus more damage over time. The fact that the resource is finite doesn't matter in the time frame of individual encounters. At the point of attack, Geth heat sink weapons would outpace alliance cooldown weapons and produce a superior volume of fire and higher alliance casualties.

The notion that you think waiting 5-10 second is a good idea tells me eveything I need to know about your viewpoint. That is a suicide call in any combat system. You want people shooting, not waiting. Anyone who has been in combat will tell you having a weapon out of service is the worst thing that can happen. The fact that weapons were designed to go out of service is an even worse design. You keep trying to fit ME2 mythos into ME1 when you should be trying to forget how silly ME1's lore was.

To borrow your example but to make it more apt because time is part of the element in combat but not in your daily commute. It is an issue in a car race though. In a car race which is better:  stopping for 1 minute 5 times to reload the car with gasoline or pulling over once to wait 10 minutes to recharge the car? 

[Terror_K]

Sidney wrote...

It isn't about damage it is about rounds. More rounds = more changes to hit and thus more damage over time. The fact that the resource is finite doesn't matter in the time frame of individual encounters. At the point of attack, Geth heat sink weapons would outpace alliance cooldown weapons and produce a superior volume of fire and higher alliance casualties.

The notion that you think waiting 5-10 second is a good idea tells me eveything I need to know about your viewpoint. That is a suicide call in any combat system. You want people shooting, not waiting. Anyone who has been in combat will tell you having a weapon out of service is the worst thing that can happen. The fact that weapons were designed to go out of service is an even worse design. You keep trying to fit ME2 mythos into ME1 when you should be trying to forget how silly ME1's lore was.

To borrow your example but to make it more apt because time is part of the element in combat but not in your daily commute. It is an issue in a car race though. In a car race which is better:  stopping for 1 minute 5 times to reload the car with gasoline or pulling over once to wait 10 minutes to recharge the car? 

Except there aren''t more rounds being fired with ME2's weapons. The Hand Cannons fire slower than any pistol in ME1, and that's not even taking into account the Marksman skill.

On top of that, if one modifies their weapon well enough they can avoid overheating entirely.

On top of that again, if one fires in a sensible, controlled manner, one can shoot indefinitely without needing to stop due to overheat at all by simply not firing quite as fast. Overheating should only happen to the trigger-happy. One has to consider that when dealing with thermal clips you also take a couple of seconds to eject and replace it, and if this is all about speed that replacement time is also a factor, and a good gunner could avoid it with an overheat weapon entirely by simply not letting it overheat and modding it for maximum heat efficiency.

Also, a weapon being "out of service" is far more likely when it depends on a finite resource to make it work. An old-school weapon will never be out of service for more than a few seconds, and if you're in cover a lot of the time you won't be constantly firing anyway, so the time loss is no biggie. Run out of thermal clips and a weapon is completely useless: it's not even a hybrid, so you can't even fire at a reduced rate without the little buggers.

I also imagine in a car race one would be smart enough to make sure their car was fully charged before hand.

Sorry, but it's not ME1's mythos that is broken and stupid, it's ME2's. Especially when it comes to us expecting the entire galaxy to adhere to a clearly inferior technology within two years. Why rely on something when you don't have to? There's no evidence at all that the weapons in ME2 are any better off for it. They aren't generally faster, and they don't generally do more damage. I can see why they did it for gameplay reasons, but it makes next to zero sense to do it in-universe.

It's the same as The Hammerhead: a supposed exploration vehicle with combat capabilities that  doesn't have shields, has armour little stronger than a cardboard box, has limited, slow and inefficient weapons, can't rotate its turret, has a speed booster that's asking for unforseen trouble, minimal heat resistance and is propelled by engines that --had Shepard taken it to Noveria in the first game-- would have resulted in them freezing and he/she and his/her team being frozen to death as they completely failed to stop Saren. ME2's whole theme seems to be about retarded gameplay changes that make no sense in the real world, let alone in a once well-crafted universe.

Modifié par Terror_K, 27 septembre 2010 - 07:24 .

[Godeskian]

I'm honestly torn. I found combat in me2 much more exciting for the lack of unlimited ammo. I'm not a very good shot so I burned through more ammo than most I imagine, but in the first game I could just spray and pray. If I missed, no biggie at all.

[Epic777]

Captain_Obvious_au wrote...

All I have to say is...what Terror_K said. Perfectly written and sums up my views nicely.

I'll also disagree about the whole 'gameplay > realism' argument, and really it irritates me whenever I see it. If you can't find the game believable, then gameplay becomes irrelevant. Especially when you're going into a universe, like Mass Effect, where so many things are established, you can't just ****** all over continuity and say 'oh we needed to do it to make the game better'.

It seems that very little thought was put into these sorts of decisions by Bioware, which is becoming more and more apparent as is the conclusion that they live in their own little bubble world, as evidenced by Casey Hudson claiming that ME players love mining in ME2.

 



I disagree. Inventory is the classic gameplay over realism, the player has to suspend belief that somehow their character can carry hundreds of weapons, armor etc, FOR LONG DUNGEON CRAWLS. Seriously a small bag of holding can somehow hold many different types of weapons, armors etc. Realist? No but it served a valuable gameplay service. JC Dention, Deus Ex, can hold a GEP gun,snipers rile, assault rifle plus the dragons tooth sword all at the same time....The player has to suspend belief. 

I disagree when you are dealing with the whole scifi genre you have to suspend belief at least partially.  In the Matrix the viewer has to suspend belief that a person putting their consciousness in a piece of software is not possible. Starwars, the viewers have to believe a sword can be crafted from pure energy, which correct me if I am wrong is not possible.

As for the me series, we must understand one thing the unlimited ammo was itself a gameplay mechanic as is the thermal clip system in me2. Unlimited ammo was not there just for the sake of lore, it was there as a mechanic for the whole combat system. Whether moving to a different mechanic was a good or bad, thats a players call, your call. 

The big problem for bioware is both me1 and me2 are fairly different games, unfortunately both games were critical and commercial successes, making it harder to guess whats working and not. Hell the community is divided on what path me3 should go, more me1? more me2? Both?Bring back inventory?

[Terror_K]

It all depends how it's weaved in the lore. For example, BioWare hasn't tried to offer explanations as to how Shepard can carry so much equipment, because it really is something that's purely a gameplay factor and doesn't really come into play regarding the realism and integrity of the set universe. It's completely ignored in this respect and doesn't extend beyond its own basic and purely gameplay related functions.



Thermal clips, however, don't. They're referenced directly in the game by the characters, have been woven into the lore and are part of the codex. This makes them something that's harder to ignore and makes them far more of an irritant when it comes to clashing with lore and even basic logic, because they're integral to the universe itself due to their implementation. On top of it all, the manner in which they're woven into the lore doesn't make much sense and is hard to swallow.



That's also why things like Jack running around with only a breather mask in dangerous environments are hard to accept, especially when simply covering her wouldn't adversely affect gameplay. We're supposed to swallow this not only beyond the fact that it makes no scientific sense in a universe that has generally up to this point taken itself fairly seriously, but also when it contradicts existing codex entries and lore. A lot of the characters will run around without armour, yet they still have kinetic shields and medi-gel dispensers despite the fact that the lore itself says that these are part of armour and not regular clothing. Even if we did accept this, it also specifically states that kinetic barriers don't protect against temperature, pressure, hazardous gasses, etc. and yet we're supposed to swallow that somehow our squaddies are fine with only a breather-mask on to protect them.



Unfortunately ME2 is filled with these factors that make it hard to take the universe seriously any more. ME1 may have had a few factors that didn't quite sync up with realism, but pretty much all of them were purely gameplay elements and ignored totally beyond this. Inventory was one of these things, as was leveling up as a whole and going from somebody who could barely hit the broad side of a barn from three feet away to God and Master, Alpha and Omega of all weapons. If you leave it out of the lore and narrative, it's easy to ignore. When you try and weave it through and it fails, it's far more noticeable.

[kalle90]

Captain_Obvious_au wrote...

All I have to say is...what Terror_K said. Perfectly written and sums up my views nicely.

I'll also disagree about the whole 'gameplay > realism' argument, and really it irritates me whenever I see it. If you can't find the game believable, then gameplay becomes irrelevant. Especially when you're going into a universe, like Mass Effect, where so many things are established, you can't just ****** all over continuity and say 'oh we needed to do it to make the game better'.

It seems that very little thought was put into these sorts of decisions by Bioware, which is becoming more and more apparent as is the conclusion that they live in their own little bubble world, as evidenced by Casey Hudson claiming that ME players love mining in ME2.

Yup, the trilogy is already broken. Whatever system Bioware chooses for the next game I will be annoyed (doesn't make sense to go back, ME2 system is weak and another change would probably be odd too), but I hope they go for the middle way - thermal clips are changeable heatsinks. You can have unlimited ammo, but the weapon gets worse as it heats up. Unstability is the original reason for thermal clips

If the original system was broken why didn't they change it back then for ME1? It's like they had an idea of this series without really knowing what to do. The good thing is that now they sound satisifed and probably too much won't change in ME3 but I hope enough does

[Sidney]

Terror_K wrote...

1. Except there aren''t more rounds being fired with ME2's weapons. The Hand Cannons fire slower than any pistol in ME1, and that's not even taking into account the Marksman skill.

2. On top of that, if one modifies their weapon well enough they can avoid overheating entirely.

3. On top of that again, if one fires in a sensible, controlled manner, one can shoot indefinitely without needing to stop due to overheat at all by simply not firing quite as fast.

4. Also, a weapon being "out of service" is far more likely when it depends on a finite resource to make it work.

5. I also imagine in a car race one would be smart enough to make sure their car was fully charged before hand.

6. It's the same as The Hammerhead: a supposed exploration vehicle with combat capabilities that  doesn't have shields, has armour little stronger than a cardboard box, has limited, slow and inefficient weapons, can't rotate its turret, has a speed booster that's asking for unforseen trouble,

1. An argument that makes no sense since the comparison would be weapon over weapon. A hand cannon in ME2 would fire faster than one in ME.

2. You get hung up on realism and never ask why this "mod" isn't just part of the gun. If you CAN stop it from overheating why don't you to start with?

3. So once again we get back to the fewer rounds being fired. I already said that ME1 requires a very specific and non-adaptable type of fire discipline. The fact that you have to shoot, pause, shoot, pause is limiting your ability to put rounds on the target. In a close quarters fight I want to be able to cycle my weapon and continue fighting. In ME1 that's not gonna happen, I'm out of commission. The fact that ME1 imposes one way of fighting is a terrible limiter.

4. Ammo doesn't bleed out that way. Modern infantrymen, depending on force and nationality, will carry between 150-300 rounds on a normal mission and they can't typically pick up spares lying around the battlefield. The amount of ammo with heat sinks is more than enough to complete a common mission.

5. See above, I imagine I'd be smart enough to load up on ammo before I leave base.

6. Yes, the Hammerhead sucks but then again the Mako is worse at exploration. You couldn't complete the VI missions for example because the MAKO is an exploration vehicle that can't cross rivers, deep ravines or mountain ranges while there is nothing the MAKO did in ME1 that the Hammerhead couldn't do.

[Terror_K]

Sidney wrote...

1. An argument that makes no sense since the comparison would be weapon over weapon. A hand cannon in ME2 would fire faster than one in ME.

Really. Does an ME2 pistol fire faster than the ME1 equivalent? And you can't point to SMG's because that makes less sense than my hand cannon comparison.

2. You get hung up on realism and never ask why this "mod" isn't just part of the gun. If you CAN stop it from overheating why don't you to start with?

All kinds of reasons. Cost, space, weapon size, weapon functionality. In ME1 this came in mod-form, but if one wanted a different mod they may have to give up the extra cooling capacity. I can get special ways to cool my computer chips beyond a simple fan, but they cost more and don't generally come as standard.

Of course ME2 kind of crapped on a lot of this by allowing weapons to be upgraded fully with no drawbacks and no sacrifice.

3. So once again we get back to the fewer rounds being fired. I already said that ME1 requires a very specific and non-adaptable type of fire discipline. The fact that you have to shoot, pause, shoot, pause is limiting your ability to put rounds on the target. In a close quarters fight I want to be able to cycle my weapon and continue fighting. In ME1 that's not gonna happen, I'm out of commission. The fact that ME1 imposes one way of fighting is a terrible limiter.

Again, it's no worse than the need to pause for ejecting and reloading a thermal clip. And usually one can get off more than one shot before needing to pause, pistols particularly are fairly efficient. And, again, it's not like one is constantly shooting all the time. You aim, fire a few times, then take cover before you get shot yourself. At least in the heat of battle with the old guns there's never that need to strategically reload, which if one forgets to do one can either be massacred or lose out on a perfect shot (seriously, the amount of times the enemy was just perfectly in my crosshairs in ME2 only for the thermal clips to screw me thanks to a reload delay.)

4. Ammo doesn't bleed out that way. Modern infantrymen, depending on force and nationality, will carry between 150-300 rounds on a normal mission and they can't typically pick up spares lying around the battlefield. The amount of ammo with heat sinks is more than enough to complete a common mission.

First of all, Mass Effect isn't set in modern times. Also keep in mind that it's only due to game balancing, magically appearing clips and throwing logic out the window that there are as many clips as there are and you never run out (for starters, it's impossible, as they respawn). Also keep in mind that Shepard can pick them up by stepping on them, unlike in real life. Then there's the fact enemies and squaddies don't even need to rely on them at all: it's only you and Shepard that does. I imagine they'd be more scarce if the enemy were really using them and your squaddies needed them too. The only reason there's so many and enough is because BioWare designed the game around their own flawed premise, including putting thermal clips in places that have no reason to be there.

5. See above, I imagine I'd be smart enough to load up on ammo before I leave base.

And what if you inderestimate the need? What if you lose it for some reason? What if you're expecting there to be some where you're going, but there's not? It's still a case where you're depending on a resource suddenly that you didn't have to earlier for no tangible benefits.

6. Yes, the Hammerhead sucks but then again the Mako is worse at exploration. You couldn't complete the VI missions for example because the MAKO is an exploration vehicle that can't cross rivers, deep ravines or mountain ranges while there is nothing the MAKO did in ME1 that the Hammerhead couldn't do.

The Mako is better at exploration in every sense. The only reason the level was like that in ME2 was because it was designed with The Hammerhead in mind, rather than being a realistic place. The Hammerhead would have problems climbing a hill as steep as The Mako could, would likely catch fire on the places that were too hot on ME1 and its engines would freeze in the places that are too cold (there are worlds in ME1 you take The Mako --including Noveria-- that are colder than the place where you have to use The Hammerhead quickly or else it freezes up and becomes useless.

Sure... The Hammerhead is better equipped to deal with the worlds that are purposefully built and designed around it, and aren't like real uncharted worlds would be at all, but as an actual practical exploration vehicle designed to explore the unknown, it's a joke. The only thing is does better than The Mako is turn quickly and jump. It's also faster, but that would tend to probably cause more problems than anything. But of course the worlds The Hammerhead lands on are largely flat surfaces no steeper than 40 degrees incline and filled with convenient platformy jumpy cliffs and areas.

Modifié par Terror_K, 27 septembre 2010 - 01:03 .

[Jebel Krong]

arguing about which vehicle is better in fictional environments is pointless. I agree with terror_k though, the ammo clip system is the biggest mistake of ME2 - it's broken, inferior and continuity-breaking for the sake of a "gameplay" reason that's not valid/could have been achieved by different methods.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 27 septembre 2010 - 01:38 .

[Heldelance]

That was one of the biggest qualms I had with ME2, I loved that weapons didn't need ammo and that you only had to watch your heat levels. I do believe that they could have balanced it out a little better but ME1 had it pretty much right weapon wise. Sure you could go for a weapon that fired continuously but it would fire slowly (2 Fric Xs with Snow X) but you could do a helluva lot more damage with 2 Scram Xs and other ammo, you just had to watch what you shot. Another thing that was great in ME1 was the myriad of weapons you could pick up. Sure most of them were crappy if you got the Spectre Grade weapons, but they could easily put more differences in the different guns. The upgrades were also much better, more variety and it made more sense. Since when were biotics able to "upgrade" their ammo? "Too much clutter" some might say. All the devs need to do is make a more manageable inventory system.



From ME1 to ME2, it makes very little sense both gameplay and lore wise. Sure they were trying to incorporate Geth tech, then again unless the Geth received super shields, the weapons in ME1 were adequate enough to bust them up. The weapons in ME2 on the other hand were reminiscent of the handgun in Halo.



The vehicles were just as bad. The Mako was hardier, more maneuverable, and personally, more fun. The Hammerhead, while entertaining, was quite a step back. It couldn't take any damage compared to the Mako. You'd think that Cerberus would invest in a hybrid of the two really, kinda like a Mako with souped up boosters and a directional boost capacity.

[Atmosfear3]

Lets stop for a moment and ignore the lore side of the argument and focus only on gameplay. I couldn't care less how stupid you think it is that ME2 regressed to an inferior form of technology; I want to discuss gameplay and only gameplay. Ready?



The fact of the matter is, ME1's gameplay mechanics were clunky and amateur at best. Even BW admitted this, which is why they placed such an emphasis on gameplay for this sequel. A successful shooter (and yes, ME is a shooter) requires some sort of resource management. This management comes in two forms:



1) Ammo - To have an infinite amount of ammo defeats the purpose of even having multiple weapons. Why wouldn't I just use the cain for every single battle if I knew I had an infinite supply of heavy weapons ammo? Why wouldn't I use the Widow 100% of the time if I could fire off headshots all day without worry of running out of ammo?



2) Reloading - In order to set a good pace for action, you must have a reload mechanic. Waiting for your gun to cooldown from shooting would be the complete opposite of this goal.



The truth is, Bioware succeeded in revamping their gameplay mechanics for ME2. What is required now is refinement and polish. If it bothers you so much that there are random thermal clips lying around, you can always suggest to BW that Shepard should just carry an infinite supply of clips. But don't expect the reloading mechanic to go away.

[William Adama]

ME1 Pistol:







ME2 Pistols:







You decide.

[sinosleep]

That is precisely while I prefer ME 2's method to ME 1's lore be damned.

[kalle90]

Atmosfear3 wrote...

Lets stop for a moment and ignore the lore side of the argument and focus only on gameplay. I couldn't care less how stupid you think it is that ME2 regressed to an inferior form of technology; I want to discuss gameplay and only gameplay. Ready?

The fact of the matter is, ME1's gameplay mechanics were clunky and amateur at best. Even BW admitted this, which is why they placed such an emphasis on gameplay for this sequel. A successful shooter (and yes, ME is a shooter) requires some sort of resource management. This management comes in two forms:

1) Ammo - To have an infinite amount of ammo defeats the purpose of even having multiple weapons. Why wouldn't I just use the cain for every single battle if I knew I had an infinite supply of heavy weapons ammo? Why wouldn't I use the Widow 100% of the time if I could fire off headshots all day without worry of running out of ammo?

2) Reloading - In order to set a good pace for action, you must have a reload mechanic. Waiting for your gun to cooldown from shooting would be the complete opposite of this goal.

The truth is, Bioware succeeded in revamping their gameplay mechanics for ME2. What is required now is refinement and polish. If it bothers you so much that there are random thermal clips lying around, you can always suggest to BW that Shepard should just carry an infinite supply of clips. But don't expect the reloading mechanic to go away.

1) Heavy weapons were introduced in ME2 and use power cells. They could still have ammo. For other weapons it's just a matter of balancing the power/accuracy/rateoffire/cooldown/range/overheating. Sniper at range, shotgun at close, rifles and pistols somewhere in between.

2) Who said that? IMO it just made the a bit more unique system into a complete copy of every other shooter. Plus there were other options, with dozens just around these forums. I'd be a ton happier if the overheated thermal clips just cooled down after which you could use them again - basically what you mentioned having infinite ammo but reloading too but that didn't happen so why would it happen now?

There isn't a truth. Bioware tried a different way many like, yet many hate. Bioware could have done much better and that's what annoys me. Atleast ME1 had some originality and options while ME2 is a very bareboned copy of any other mediocre shooter

If they focus too much on improving the current system, the story will suffer. If they change the system completely again, awful things happen.