528 réponses à ce sujet

[sinosleep]

I agree with you that they went a little far with some of the paring down (more custimizable classes with more powers to choose from would have been great) but lets not get carried away, ME 2 still has classes, powers, resource gathering, a campaign that's longer than the 10 hour shooter standard, dialogue trees, and plenty of other rpg mechanics, and BioWare has already come out and said they plan on strengthening the rpg side of things for ME 3 the same way they strengthened the shooter side of things for ME 2. But that's not what this thread is about any way.

Modifié par sinosleep, 01 octobre 2010 - 07:27 .

[kalle90]

Lumikki wrote...

DoomMech wrote...

Right, but this is a situation were gameplay and lore try to mesh and just creates more questions.

Maybe, but lore was created to support gameplay as what it was then, but when gameplay failed and needed to be changed, lore was still same. Now are you saying that lore what did not work should force broken gameplay back? That doens't make any more sense than change to lore to support current gameplay. Both are not optimal options, because there will allways be conflict or player have suffer bad gameplay because lore or player can enjoy good gameplay while have old or new lore.

This seems to come back down to: "The current system is fine, no need to change it". I've never been a fan of that belief. Especially based on how ME2 "fixed" the problems of ME1

ME3 could have something that works for both lore and gameplay. Perhaps breaking lore doesn't matter much to you, but for many people it affects how they like the gameplay too.

[weedlink10]

i think all this can be solve if the inventory came back, that way ammo can be collected and stored, those who take the time to look for ammo can save them and have hundreds in the inventory.

Modifié par weedlink10, 01 octobre 2010 - 08:57 .

[Evil_Weasel]

Mars Nova wrote...

You do realize that the ammo is unlimited, right? What you're collecting are thermal clips, which regulate your weapon's heat. Without those, you can't fire.

Fixed that for you with some sweet highlighting action.

[Mudzr]

I like the ammo clips but the sniper rifles seriously need more clips. Ok, I get it how you're supposed to be careful with shots, but I run out too quickly, and it's basically become a weapon that you save for special moments, expecially with the Widow, which is cool and all unless you're playing as an inflitrator where your class is basically built around it, or like me and you just use other weapons and miss out on the potential of the sniper rilfes.

So yeah, keep the new system, but if the ammo capacity for all weapons increased by a fair bit it would be awesome.

[Mutantcadet14]

I think one of the biggest problems with the "heat sink" system as opposed to the "thermal clip" system is that in order to reward the player the game had to keep giving them better weapons i.e. weapons with more shots per overheat. In the begining isn't it fair to say that the snipers with 1.1 shots per overheat were very similar to the mantis? if anything you had the option to try for a second shot real quick at the cost of an overheat and that to me sounds like a fair trade off, from a balancing perspective that is. The problem only arose when you got weapons that took 100+ shots to over heat. I remember having a shotgun that took nearly thirty to overheat, and thats only if i tried and that is the where the problem arose.



Enter "thermal clips". Usintg the existing "ammo" system used in other games it was destined to work better and it did. Regardless of what we prefer i think we can all agree that this removed many existing ballancing issues that had existed in the first game.



Now. I would propose something more akin to the "heatsink" system but drawing from the "thermal clip" system as well. Say you have your sniper rifle ala ME1 and it can get 4 or 5 shots per overheat. as you fill up the sink in the heat of battle you realize you cant afford to wait for it to cool off before your next round so you switch it out with a second heatsink, a meter for which is just above the first, and continue firing. as you do the first sink cools off and you later switch back to it.



If you overheat your gun you cant touch it because you'll burn yourself. If you want to switch sinks then you do have to stop firing but not as long as for an overheat. i would imagine the heat up and cool down rates would have to be toyed with but from anything i can tell this is a happy medium between the two systems from both a gameplay and lore perspective.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Simply put: shoring up shooter gameplay doesn't mean whittling away almost every ounce of RPG gameplay to the point where it's almost an entirely shooter-based combat system (and a bare-bones one at that). Let's remember that originally Mass Effect was intended to be an RPG first and foremost, but with TPS-based combat.

This depense how you look situation. If you think combat is all what ME serie is then yes, it's TPS. But that isn't really true isn't it, there is alot more in ME series than just combat. It's about accepting what ME serie is, not just understanding it.

I bolded you problem. Why I sayed it's you problem, because you define what ME series is by first ME only. Why you do it, because you love it's RPG side so much that you can't accept the reality as what ME serie really is. You need and want it to be more RPG. How ever, ME serie is not just one game it's all of them, including comming ME3. It doesn't even matter what kind of balance ME3 has, it still part of serie and defines it as equal ways as other two ME's. So, you problem is that ME serie as hole isn't exactly what you wanted and define it, but it's something little different from your view point. Your unability accept this and love of RPG cause your to try every moment push RPG in everyting, when RPG is just one part of what ME serie is.

What you could do is try to improve what's not TPS and make it's RPG better without trying to destroy the TPS side. There is alot more than TPS combat in ME series. Why they cut off RPG from combat side between ME1 and ME2? Because the RPG part in TPS was what did make TPS combat bad. I know, you want fix, but it's allready fixed. Move on and try to improve rest of the game. Customation, modding, exploration, impression, companions, world, character development and so on.

Modifié par Lumikki, 01 octobre 2010 - 03:13 .

[Atmosfear3]

I would love more than anything for someone who has access to fully automatic machine guns to go to a shooting range. Pick a target and just hold down the trigger for as long as your clip/ammo box allows. Then come back and tell us how long it took for the heat to dissipate from the barrel.



I think its hilarious that anyone who willingly choose to sit in cover for their weapon to "cooldown". Spare me the lore and futuristic equipment argument. If it was so futuristic we'd all have laser weapons already.

[Mutantcadet14]

Atmosfear3 wrote...

I would love more than anything for someone who has access to fully automatic machine guns to go to a shooting range. Pick a target and just hold down the trigger for as long as your clip/ammo box allows. Then come back and tell us how long it took for the heat to dissipate from the barrel.

I think its hilarious that anyone who willingly choose to sit in cover for their weapon to "cooldown". Spare me the lore and futuristic equipment argument. If it was so futuristic we'd all have laser weapons already.

I'll never claim to be a gun nut but even with my limited experience i see where you're coming from.

However i think taking what guns are like in real life now and comparing them to how they function in the future in fiction isn't quite the way to go.

In ME its not just a "oh look the gun is kinda hot cuz i shot it." Its more like "I just fired a microscopic pellet at a velocity that is measured in relation to the speed of light and the friction of the shot created heat that the gun is engineered to channel into a heat sink from where cooling and ventilation systems are used to disperse the heat."

I appreciate what you're saying but these are videogames, not real life.

I'm not about to spare you the most important thin to remember about videogames in a discussion abot a game. Seriously.

Modifié par Mutantcadet14, 01 octobre 2010 - 06:20 .

[Lumikki]

Mutantcadet14 wrote...

I appreciate what you're saying but these are videogames, not real life.

I'm not about to spare you the most important thin to remember about videogames in a discussion abot a game. Seriously.

Yes, but lore should not be excuse to create bad gameplay experience for players. Gameplay has to feel good too, not just from perspective of lore, but actual gameplay in videogame.

Modifié par Lumikki, 01 octobre 2010 - 06:32 .

[Evil_Weasel]

To be honest I hope if we all complain about thermal clips enough, they will pull an inventory system fix, and by that I mean delete them.



Hope it doesnt back fire and they precive it as a weapons problem and delete those, no guns no heat sink or thermal clip problem, just delete the guns and there wont be any complaints as to how they work right?? RIGHT!?!? Please dont do that BW.



It seems like every thermal c. lover references ME1's Specter master gear modded with double frictionless materials and the ability to avoid overheating regardless of how long you hold down the trigger. I think if frictionless materials wernt in the game, and guns didnt get more shots as they got more expensive, then we may not have this thermal c. mess now.



If I had a gun that I could just stuff a metal block into every so often and could fire thousands of rounds, but had to let it cool off, and my CO came up to me to "fix" it so it could accept thermal clips, but it meant I would have to carry them around and would be limeted to how many I was carrying, I would run screaming for the hills yelling "dont mess up my gun."



Just think about this, the Mantis can be fired twice as fast in ME2 than it could in ME1 (by a level 1 soldier) but at the cost of only being able to be fired 10 times now. In ME1 for some reason a bolt was pulled on the sniper rifles, if you pulled the trigger as soon as this animation finshed you would over heat a sniper rifle, but now you eject t. clips and can pull the trigger asap without overheating, but again at the cost of only 10 shots for double the rate of fire.

[Gokuthegrate]

When I first heard about the clips I thought that the weapons would heat like in the first game and if you had clips you could spend one to instanly cool the weapon down without waiting.

I think that would be a better system for the weapons in 3.

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Simply put: shoring up shooter gameplay doesn't mean whittling away almost every ounce of RPG gameplay to the point where it's almost an entirely shooter-based combat system (and a bare-bones one at that). Let's remember that originally Mass Effect was intended to be an RPG first and foremost, but with TPS-based combat.

This depense how you look situation. If you think combat is all what ME serie is then yes, it's TPS. But that isn't really true isn't it, there is alot more in ME series than just combat. It's about accepting what ME serie is, not just understanding it.

I bolded you problem. Why I sayed it's you problem, because you define what ME series is by first ME only. Why you do it, because you love it's RPG side so much that you can't accept the reality as what ME serie really is. You need and want it to be more RPG. How ever, ME serie is not just one game it's all of them, including comming ME3. It doesn't even matter what kind of balance ME3 has, it still part of serie and defines it as equal ways as other two ME's. So, you problem is that ME serie as hole isn't exactly what you wanted and define it, but it's something little different from your view point. Your unability accept this and love of RPG cause your to try every moment push RPG in everyting, when RPG is just one part of what ME serie is.

What you could do is try to improve what's not TPS and make it's RPG better without trying to destroy the TPS side. There is alot more than TPS combat in ME series. Why they cut off RPG from combat side between ME1 and ME2? Because the RPG part in TPS was what did make TPS combat bad. I know, you want fix, but it's allready fixed. Move on and try to improve rest of the game. Customation, modding, exploration, impression, companions, world, character development and so on.

I'm not basing this on just what I want the game to be, I'm basing it on what BioWare themselves said Mass Effect was intended to be in early interviews before ME1 came out. They specifically said that it was first and foremost an RPG, and that it employed real-time TPS combat rather than turn-based combat to basically make it a more intense and action-packed experience to suit its film style narrative and presentation. Aside from the fact that the original game set the standard (or at least should have), BioWare made it pretty clear in early interviews and reveals that Mass Effect was an RPG. In fact, in many ways it was originally intended to be even deeper and more involved as an RPG than it ended up being.

It wasn't until after ME1 and the early ME2 stuff that the shooter stuff really started to come into play and BioWare stopped using the term RPG so much and kept going on about the combat and saying that they'd strengthened the shooter combat and that the game would appeal to shooter fans more now and how it was just as much shooter as an RPG (or should I say more shooter than RPG), etc.

So the ME series only became something different with ME2. They changed the direction and what they initially said ME was supposed to be because too many shooter fans whined about the combat in the first game, and they decided to make it appeal to a greater audience. That should be pretty damn clear to anybody who has followed Mass Effect from the very start. It's not about me being unhappy with the ME series for what it's supposed to be, it's about me being uphappy that BioWare decided to change what it was supposed to be to something else halfway through. It's not like the changes are subtle, and it's pretty damn evident that ME1 would have been more like ME2 automatically if that's what they originally intended.

TPS is also not fixed, because it only is in the most basic sense: by removing the stat-based cone of death mechanics and replacing it with skill-based shooting. And if that's all they'd "fixed" it wouldn't have been a problem, but that's not the case. The combat is so far removed from the RPG side now that the game lacks proper integration and doesn't gel well. The RPG stuff is just too scaled back and isolated now, or its too simplified and automated, and the game just isn't balanced as well. ME1 had the balance better, even if the mechanics were flawed.

[Epic777]

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Simply put: shoring up shooter gameplay doesn't mean whittling away almost every ounce of RPG gameplay to the point where it's almost an entirely shooter-based combat system (and a bare-bones one at that). Let's remember that originally Mass Effect was intended to be an RPG first and foremost, but with TPS-based combat.

This depense how you look situation. If you think combat is all what ME serie is then yes, it's TPS. But that isn't really true isn't it, there is alot more in ME series than just combat. It's about accepting what ME serie is, not just understanding it.

I bolded you problem. Why I sayed it's you problem, because you define what ME series is by first ME only. Why you do it, because you love it's RPG side so much that you can't accept the reality as what ME serie really is. You need and want it to be more RPG. How ever, ME serie is not just one game it's all of them, including comming ME3. It doesn't even matter what kind of balance ME3 has, it still part of serie and defines it as equal ways as other two ME's. So, you problem is that ME serie as hole isn't exactly what you wanted and define it, but it's something little different from your view point. Your unability accept this and love of RPG cause your to try every moment push RPG in everyting, when RPG is just one part of what ME serie is.

What you could do is try to improve what's not TPS and make it's RPG better without trying to destroy the TPS side. There is alot more than TPS combat in ME series. Why they cut off RPG from combat side between ME1 and ME2? Because the RPG part in TPS was what did make TPS combat bad. I know, you want fix, but it's allready fixed. Move on and try to improve rest of the game. Customation, modding, exploration, impression, companions, world, character development and so on.

I'm not basing this on just what I want the game to be, I'm basing it on what BioWare themselves said Mass Effect was intended to be in early interviews before ME1 came out. They specifically said that it was first and foremost an RPG, and that it employed real-time TPS combat rather than turn-based combat to basically make it a more intense and action-packed experience to suit its film style narrative and presentation. Aside from the fact that the original game set the standard (or at least should have), BioWare made it pretty clear in early interviews and reveals that Mass Effect was an RPG. In fact, in many ways it was originally intended to be even deeper and more involved as an RPG than it ended up being.

It wasn't until after ME1 and the early ME2 stuff that the shooter stuff really started to come into play and BioWare stopped using the term RPG so much and kept going on about the combat and saying that they'd strengthened the shooter combat and that the game would appeal to shooter fans more now and how it was just as much shooter as an RPG (or should I say more shooter than RPG), etc.

So the ME series only became something different with ME2. They changed the direction and what they initially said ME was supposed to be because too many shooter fans whined about the combat in the first game, and they decided to make it appeal to a greater audience. That should be pretty damn clear to anybody who has followed Mass Effect from the very start. It's not about me being unhappy with the ME series for what it's supposed to be, it's about me being uphappy that BioWare decided to change what it was supposed to be to something else halfway through. It's not like the changes are subtle, and it's pretty damn evident that ME1 would have been more like ME2 automatically if that's what they originally intended.

TPS is also not fixed, because it only is in the most basic sense: by removing the stat-based cone of death mechanics and replacing it with skill-based shooting. And if that's all they'd "fixed" it wouldn't have been a problem, but that's not the case. The combat is so far removed from the RPG side now that the game lacks proper integration and doesn't gel well. The RPG stuff is just too scaled back and isolated now, or its too simplified and automated, and the game just isn't balanced as well. ME1 had the balance better, even if the mechanics were flawed.

How? Is me1 more balanced?
Also this is the bane of action RPG hybrids especially shooter hybrids, usually its flipped the the shooter side is do scaled back.

[Terror_K]

Epic777 wrote...

How? Is me1 more balanced?

Because it simply is: there's a stronger degree of RPG elements, but the shooter stuff is still very present also. ME1 is about 60% RPG and about 40% shooter, while ME2 is about 20% RPG and 80% shooter (note: this is referring to RPG gameplay mechanics solely, and ignoring narrative and story-driven elements). I'll admit that the shooter stuff needed to be strengthened in ME1, but now it's completely overpowered the RPG elements entirely. The RPG elements have almost entirely been sucked out of combat and are pretty much reduced to dialogue roleplaying elements and leveling up to unlock your powers (and even then gaining XP is rather questionable in its execution in ME2, with it being a meaningless and random number just thrown at us with no clear indication as to how it was earnt and why).

Mass Effect has gone from being a cinematic RPG with TPS combat with the first game to a cinematic story-driven TPS with light RPG elements in the second.

[Epic777]

Terror_K wrote...

Epic777 wrote...

How? Is me1 more balanced?

Because it simply is: there's a stronger degree of RPG elements, but the shooter stuff is still very present also. ME1 is about 60% RPG and about 40% shooter, while ME2 is about 20% RPG and 80% shooter (note: this is referring to RPG gameplay mechanics solely, and ignoring narrative and story-driven elements). I'll admit that the shooter stuff needed to be strengthened in ME1, but now it's completely overpowered the RPG elements entirely. The RPG elements have almost entirely been sucked out of combat and are pretty much reduced to dialogue roleplaying elements and leveling up to unlock your powers (and even then gaining XP is rather questionable in its execution in ME2, with it being a meaningless and random number just thrown at us with no clear indication as to how it was earnt and why).

Mass Effect has gone from being a cinematic RPG with TPS combat with the first game to a cinematic story-driven TPS with light RPG elements in the second.

Terror, both you and I have played enough RPGs to know having a stronger presence of RPG elements does not make a game balanced, that would be like calling a bunch building materials a house. In Morrowind you could beat Ordinators by level 5, Umbra by level 8 and I should know I have done it. Oblvion has permanent chameleon <- very easy to do. Mages were powerful in baldurs gate 2 and more so it TOB. KOTOR II, two words: FORCE STORM.
I share the similar view to you me1:60% RPG, 40%, me2 its flipped.

[sinosleep]

I wouldn't even go with 60/40 for ME 1, practically every thing that had to do with combat was clearly derived from rpgs and not shooters. I'd say it's a lot closer to 70/30 for the first game 60/40 for the second. Because even "dumbed down" rpg mechanics like leveling, skill trees, and power use are still rpg mechanics. Where as ME 1 didn't even have dumbed down shooter mechanics (no location based damage, no ammo management, no 100% player skill/weapon based aiming) other than having to aim a reticle yourself instead of having a dice roll handle it. And even that was dumbed down since the game encouraged pausing (powers were SUBSTANTIALLY harder to aim in real time in ME 1 than in ME 2) during every other aspect of the game so many people chose to pause aim as well.

Essentially everyone is just sticking by the double standard they happen to support. They don't care if it's wildly imbalanced towards the rpg side if they favor rpgs and they don't care if it's wildly imbalanced towards the shooter side if they favor shooters.

Believe it or not, I think it's quite possible to not touch the gunplay at all and substantially step up the rpg side of things for ME 3 to hopefully make everyone quasi-happy. All they have to do is things like expand skill trees to include more powers and choice, bring back better balanced weapon and armor mods (or at least more pieces), break down research to make it more customizable, etc, etc, etc. There are a TON of changes that could strengthen the rpg side of things without having a direct impact on things like ammo, health regen, cover that works, and skill based aiming.

Modifié par sinosleep, 02 octobre 2010 - 02:27 .

[Lumikki]

If I would make estimate, I would say:

ME1 is about 70% RPG and 30% TPS.
ME2 is about 40% RPG and 60% TPS.

Why I say this?

Because in ME1 TPS side was very bad and out of balance, it did not work well at all. Also the inventory + items was badly done in ME1. Other ways ME1 was pretty good. ME1 did not suffer same problems what ME2 does, but it did suffer that some stuff did not work well.

In ME2 they did TPS side pretty good, but they cut alot of RPG elemets off when trying to simplify the game. Example skills, mods, customation, side quest, exploration with mako, some impression related details and so on. So, this make ME2 look alot more combat than it should. Even the main story and companion missions where out of balance in ME2. So, ME2 main problem isn't that stufff doesn't work, it's that it's out of balance, too much combat too little RPG and general too simplifyed system.

My recommentation for ME3 is just keep ME2 style combat and inventory, but start adding more RPG what developers did cut off. I think biggest issue is the exploration. People don't seem to understand how big deal was "driving" part of the game to create diversity to gameplay content, even if driving wasn't something what some players liked. It's about balance of content as how it feels after player has played. Too much something doesn't just feel good nor when something doesn't work well. Use ME2 as base and try to make content type more balanced, not too simplifyed as it was.

This has how ever, nothing to do with this threads subject, but it does tell that they should improve ME2 TPS system and not try to fix ME1 combat. Also I don't think Bioware would even go back to broken system anyway, when they have good base to start. As for RPG, developers are allready sayed they gonna improve it, that's good, because ME3 is gonna need it.

Modifié par Lumikki, 02 octobre 2010 - 03:08 .

[Terror_K]

sinosleep wrote...

Believe it or not, I think it's quite possible to not touch the gunplay at all and substantially step up the rpg side of things for ME 3 to hopefully make everyone quasi-happy. All they have to do is things like expand skill trees to include more powers and choice, bring back better balanced weapon and armor mods (or at least more pieces), break down research to make it more customizable, etc, etc, etc. There are a TON of changes that could strengthen the rpg side of things without having a direct impact on things like ammo, health regen, cover that works, and skill based aiming.

This I at least agree with you on. My main issue is that they could have kept these things in the first place without losing some of the RPG aspects in the process, but instead they chose to water everything down, oversimplify and have half the game go on auto-pilot rather than giving the player choice and even restriction. Again, the strengthening of the shooter mechanics didn't require the RPG stuff to suffer, but that's what happened.

So the question is not so much "can they do this?", but  "will they?"

And will they improve the presentation, immersion and overall believability/integrity of the universe while they're at it?

[Heldelance]

Weapons wise, I hope they make ME3 so there's more range in the combat. ME2 was rather annoying in that having close combat or assault weapons was far better than a long range weapon. Sure there are those that will argue that the long-range weapons kill in 1-2 shots, but they reload slowly, and they weren't AS suitable for ME2's combat.



What do I mean by this?



In ME 1, the pistol, rifle, and shotgun were rather bad for the long range battles. Yes, with mods, the rifle and pistol do reasonably well but not as well as a decent sniper. In closer ranges, the sniper rifle became a liability rather than an advantage. It forced you to switch to your close in weapons.



In ME 2, the combat ranges rarely go above medium. Yes the shotgun is horrid at that range, but it's easy enough to close in on someone to the point where the shotgun does well. As someone argued before, they said that having unlimited ammo makes you less prone to change weapons. I disagree greatly. Yes, I see your point, I acknowledge it and accept it to a certain degree. The problem is in ME 2, (class considerations aside) I found that I was less prone to switching weapons than in ME 1.

I'll bet that the main reasons why a person switches weapons in ME 2 are the following:

1) Out of ammo

2) The Rock, Paper, Scissors style combat.



That was another rather annoying thing about ME 2, they tried to deliberately force you to change weapons by making weapons ineffective against so and so. ME 1 had a preferable system where you would only really switch because of weapon/situation. For precision, you'd stick with the Rifle/Pistol, like when someone's in cover and you're trying to hit them. The shotgun was great for close combat where enemies where more in the open.



sinosleep: I agree with all the things you said in your last post. Still, personally I'd love to have the weapons changed a bit so you're not as ammo-limited situationally forced to switch as you were in ME 2.

[Evil_Weasel]

Heldelance wrote...


I'll bet that the main reasons why a person switches weapons in ME 2 are the following:
1) Out of ammo
2) The Rock, Paper, Scissors style combat.

That was another rather annoying thing about ME 2, they tried to deliberately force you to change weapons by making weapons ineffective against so and so. ME 1 had a preferable system where you would only really switch because of weapon/situation.

Close, the main reason I switch in ME2 is

1) The Rock, Paper, Scissors style combat.
2) Out of ammo.

In ME1 I had maxed pistol skill and sniper skill and used both to good effect in combat, this is the style of an infeltrator.

This t. clip stuff is silly, they are also unacceptable logisticly for a small sqaud if you ever had guns that fired a thousand rounds before reloading. Imagin your a Navy Seal and they give you a gun that might over heat if fired to long, but you wont need to replace or carry ammo for, you will never have to loot fallen enemies for ammo if you are fighting on the run.

There is a part of the game were you have to run back to the Normandy before something bad happens to you, but what if this were protracted in time and you didnt have time to get t. clips and ran out? You would just have to compleate your exodus sans gun use.

This was a nice science-fiction setting and we have people running around spaming the forums with "the guns in ME1 are unrealistic" wtf, faster than light travel is unrealistic, an element that alters the mass of things afected by its radiation is unrealistic, the principal behind the guns was well explained but some people thought it was unbalanced.

I remember people complaining that "I hate just sitting there not doing anything while I wait for my gun to cool off" but hitting the R button and watcing an animation IS doing something? Sure you hit a button, and now your watching something, those are both accivities, so ya something. But manageing heat is something too.

Best example of how insane these t. clips are is the Mantis sniper rifle, we can now fire the mantis effectivly twice as fast as could be done in ME1, but at the cost of only haveing 10 shots. What a commbat advantage that is. As I remember the codex says "whoever can put down more rounds the fastest wins the engagment" well, we doubled our sustaind rate of fire for the first 1/3 of combat, and reduced it to zero after we run out of ammo.

Another point of insanity is why the collectors use the same t. clips we use? In practice they get their technology from the Reapers, they should be useing the older style guns of whatever tech the Reapers gave them not tech that convenintly gives us back our ammo. Its just silly when you think about it.

[sinosleep]

Collectors use the same t clips we use for the same reason that any other shooter has ammo chests lying around all over the place and has you scavenging ammo from dead people with no animation, because without it the gameplay would be broken.

I mean if you want to bring realism into it the whole concept is borked practically regardless what genre of shooter you play. No real soldier runs around picking up ammo off of dead bodies. For one, you carry at LEAST 7 30 round magazines including the one in the weapon (210 rounds, more than your average soldier will ever need), secondly you're practically never going to by fighting an enemy using the same weapon in the same caliber as yourself so even if you were scavenging you wouldn't find anything useful, third, the body armor and assorted gear is a hell of a whole lot bigger weight concern than ammo ever is, and the list goes on and on and on.

Of course video games tend to force you into situations that a real soldier would never be in in the first place which results in a need for more ammo, which means scavenging, and ammo crates, and all that jazz.

It's one of those sacrifices that are made for good gameplay. Most shooter fans don't think twice about it cause it's been used for so long, but when you get down to it the "lore" of it will always seem silly. Best to just ignore it and enjoy what limited ammo and reloading brings to the gameplay since like many other things in this thread it can be realistic from one aspect (reloading, ammo isn't infinite) while being silly from another (no scavenges dead bodies for ammo on a regular basis, no one leaves crates of ammo just lying around all over the place) . 

Modifié par sinosleep, 02 octobre 2010 - 10:01 .

[kalle90]

sinosleep wrote...
Best to just ignore it and enjoy what limited ammo and reloading brings to the gameplay since like many other things in this thread it can be realistic from one aspect (reloading, ammo isn't infinite) while being silly from another (no scavenges dead bodies for ammo on a regular basis, no one leaves crates of ammo just lying around all over the place) . 

That's the only thing I can do considering ME2. Problem is that IMO limited ammo and reloading as they are in ME2 doesn't make the gameplay better, plus because it creates all these questions it also breaks immersion, which in turn makes the gameplay less enjoyable (Weapons only affect gameplay afterall). It's just a lose-lose situation

Like said: I'd prefer almost any version seen around these forums. Stick to what ME1 did, have thermal clips regenerate ammo, make them an instant cooldown item... 

[sinosleep]

And that's where you and I disagree. Limited ammo and reloading are the same in ME 2 as they are in any other shooter, which is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

[marshalleck]

I can't believe people are still hashing out this argument after all these months. FFS.

Modifié par marshalleck, 02 octobre 2010 - 10:35 .