528 réponses à ce sujet

[theelementslayer]

sinosleep wrote...

Kaylord wrote...

I don´t care so much (a little, yes) about the logical break between ME1 and ME2. The logical break occured for me when I discovered that you could eject a heat sink after partial use and *still retain* the remaining possible shots in your ammo total score! Now, how is that possible? This breach of logic could be removed by providing for endless automated supply of heat sinks. Like ammunition, ejecting some cooling matter, shouldn´t be a problem.
Game-mechanic-wise, the goal of avoiding endless fire spam would have been achieved. And the annoying looting of heatsinks (every weapon of Geth, Collector and so on use the same type? yeah sure!) would be history, too.

I wonder why ME2 managed to get away with this system, while Deus Ex: IW got totally pounded because of it, and here it is worse because of the said breach of logic. Seems unjust, regardless of the fact that a unified-ammo-system is a bad idea in general.

I know I said I was bowing out of this thread but this is a very simple question to answer and I'm online so to hell with it I'm answering it. The reason you still retain your total ammo score is for the same reason you don't lose any rounds in any other tps/fps game when you replace a half empty clip with a brand new one. It'd would be an overly harsh punishment to the player for simply wanting to remain "topped off" at all times. It's a gameplay over lore issue that most shooters have been using for ages.

Actually I think it was the old battlefields that did this, and I kinda hope ME does too but I can suspend my disbelief enough to say that its just a gameplay thing. Same reason you can kill collectors in 1 shot in cutscenes and it takes alot more in gameplay.  

[Terror_K]

Embrosil wrote...

It seems the main problem we have is not to have or not to have the ammo, but that someone wants to play an RPG and someone wants to play a shooter.
Mass Effect 1 was presented as an RPG with a TPS addition. It was not perfect, but it was unique. Good weapon modifications, no ammunition. I was naive to think that an RPG company instead of improving the system would scrap it completely and change it to a pure TPS.

The only downside in ME1 was that we had way too many weapons which either ended sold or changed to omnigel. Which is the thing ME2 has done right. To select weapons prior missions is good. But it still have flaws. First is the terribly limited variety. It is the exact opposite of ME1. The scond is the non existant modification (and no, adding +10 - +50% damage is not a modification). And the third is, how come, when you find one weapon, miraculously every team member in the mission has it too? It would be better if you could choose who will use the new weapon during the rest of the mission. Not to mention the idea we have to find weapons, which even are not unique in most cases instead of go to a shop and simply buy them.

Someone also complains about Specter Gear. I have not found it so easy to get as some mentioned. And even when I got it, I always gave it to my companions first and after all have their prefered weapon I equipped myself. And there also are better wepons than VII Specter, mostly from Rozenkov Materials (e.g. Kovalyov). But the best issue in ME1 was that everyone had weapons overload. And as the game progressed, everyone got better equipment and could shoot nearly indefinitely. Now in ME2 everyone has endless ammo, only I have to run around the battlefield like an idiot to collect ammo. How come enemies have only one weapon and do not run out of ammo? I also want to use one or two guns (eg. pistol and sniper rifle) without having to scrap the sniper rifle after 10 shots because I am a damned sniper and I really do not want to use SMGs to the same range as sniper rifle. Moreover how come, there are not ANY enemies using sniper rifles in ME2? How come not a single enemy uses immunity? Where are Korgans, who, when I was expecting them to be dead after they fell down, rise and regenerate their health? Where are biotics, who even at the end of the game, could knock me down and all I could do was to hope that my armor and shilelds d will hold. Maybe it is because we would see how flawed the ammo system is after spending all rounds on a immune enemy or a true Krogan with immunity and regenration and then having nothing to kill them with. So it is not only about the lore behind ammo/no ammo, but also about lore regarding skills and abilities. In ME1 on insanity I was really affraid of snipers, krogans and biotics even with unlimited ammo. In ME2 I only laugh how easy can not a perfect system be made even worse. And there is a still the basic question which military in the entire universe would willingly change unlimited ammo for a limited one (now I am thinking about those poor Alliance marines on a remote planet fighting the Rachni for 5 minutes instead of 26 hours as they run out of ammo. I really doubt Rachni would drop thermal clips when they die. This really made me laugh). The answer to that question is none, but it seems Bioware thinks otherwise.

^ This!

That's the thing, BioWare didn't improve the system from ME1 for ME2, they replaced it with a purely TPS one, and as such have made the game more of a TPS now whereas before it was an RPG with TPS-style combat. Whether one thinks that this is a better thing is a point of view, but they really didn't improve the old system at all, and it seems to be that they didn't make the changes to improve it or fix them so much as to replace it to appeal to the more mainstream, shooter-oriented audience that dominates today's gaming market. They even partially admitted to doing so, albeit indirectly. And the worst thing is is that most pure shooter and/or action titles have more in-depth systems than ME2 has (e.g. many such as CoD, Crysis, Hitman: Blood Money, etc. actually allow you to modify and tweak your weapons.)

[Jebel Krong]

ah, Terror_k banging his opinionated drum again...  and for the last time: both game are (and were designed to be) hybrid TPS/RPGs, only the sequel does it (mostly) better.

@ Embrosil: except that, even including mods, the weapon variety in ME2 is greater than ME1, and in the first game there is only 1 uber set - Spectre X, which you didn't mention. once you get that there's no point in collecting any other weapons. the same applies in ME2 of course, but you don't have only one choice of maximum tier weapon.

i totally agree that the ammo system is complete crap, but krogans do regenerate, the reason they don't use immunity/whatever is that they already have either/or barrier/shields/armour/health and regeneration, so anything else would be a bit overkill. Biotics don't knock you down but warp etc can cause quite a bit of damage and knock you out of cover (personally i hated being on the floor for 5 minutes during a fight in me1 on the occasion i got hit by one).

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 05 octobre 2010 - 08:08 .

[Anglerfish]

I still say keep the thermal clips, but when you run out, you can keep firing at the risk of overheating your weapon - if the weapon overheats, you suffer damage to your health due to burns and/or a kinetic barrier overload. Be careful and you can get out of tough situations of attrition. Also correlates more truthfully with idea of thermal clips - no reason is given as to why you cannot fire your weapon once you have depleted your supply of thermal clips.

[Kaylord]

Come on, if you start explaining ammo systems by reasons of "not punishing a player" you might as well stop any discussion about it and develop something like Bingo.

The goal is to have a coherent system which also satisfies gameplay. As such, keeping the "total shots possible" after ejecting a half full clip, and not being able to switch out those supposedly "standardized heat sinks" between weapons, must make you cry out loud about sloppy world design and stupid explanations. This thread is to have ideas about making it better!

[sinosleep]

Kaylord wrote...

Come on, if you start explaining ammo systems by reasons of "not punishing a player" you might as well stop any discussion about it and develop something like Bingo.
The goal is to have a coherent system which also satisfies gameplay. As such, keeping the "total shots possible" after ejecting a half full clip, and not being able to switch out those supposedly "standardized heat sinks" between weapons, must make you cry out loud about sloppy world design and stupid explanations. This thread is to have ideas about making it better!

If you're going to be anal about something as commonly accepted in practically EVERY SINGLE SHOOTER out there as not punishing players for keeping their weapons topped off by constantly reloading, then I hope to god you're being just as anal about other industry standards like carrying 150 items in your invisible back pack inventory that are accepted in practically any rpg. There are times where gameplay is going to trump lore. This isn't something unusual or new, it's the industry norm.

Modifié par sinosleep, 05 octobre 2010 - 09:57 .

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

ah, Terror_k banging his opinionated drum again...  and for the last time: both game are (and were designed to be) hybrid TPS/RPGs, only the sequel does it (mostly) better.

Incorrect. Mass Effect was originally an RPG that happened to use TPS combat... it wasn't a fully-fledged hybrid at all, much in the same way that GTA: San Andreas used a few RPG elements but by no means was an RPG hybrid, or Jade Empire uses some beat-em up elements but is not really a beat-em up. Deus Ex is a hybrid, ME1 was not. The term "shooter" didn't even come up in official channels until the early advertising for ME2 came along; with ME1 it was always either called an "RPG" or an "Action RPG" and that's what it is: an action RPG. As others have said, just because it happens to use an aspect of that game type doesn't mean it is that game type. It was only with ME2 that it became a hybrid, and unfortunately one that favoured the shooter side of things over the RPG side. And whether it does it better is a point of view. And even if it does do the shooter and combat side of things better, it certainly doesn't do the RPG side of things better.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

ah, Terror_k banging his opinionated drum again...  and for the last time: both game are (and were designed to be) hybrid TPS/RPGs, only the sequel does it (mostly) better.

Incorrect. Mass Effect was originally an RPG that happened to use TPS combat... it wasn't a fully-fledged hybrid at all, much in the same way that GTA: San Andreas used a few RPG elements but by no means was an RPG hybrid, or Jade Empire uses some beat-em up elements but is not really a beat-em up. Deus Ex is a hybrid, ME1 was not. The term "shooter" didn't even come up in official channels until the early advertising for ME2 came along; with ME1 it was always either called an "RPG" or an "Action RPG" and that's what it is: an action RPG. As others have said, just because it happens to use an aspect of that game type doesn't mean it is that game type. It was only with ME2 that it became a hybrid, and unfortunately one that favoured the shooter side of things over the RPG side. And whether it does it better is a point of view. And even if it does do the shooter and combat side of things better, it certainly doesn't do the RPG side of things better.

the very first video showed TPS combat, i'm sorry if you don't like it, but it did. Mass Effect 1 was always a hybrid, you may never accept the fact but it was, hence a lot of your problems with the series.

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

ah, Terror_k banging his opinionated drum again...  and for the last time: both game are (and were designed to be) hybrid TPS/RPGs, only the sequel does it (mostly) better.

Incorrect. Mass Effect was originally an RPG that happened to use TPS combat... it wasn't a fully-fledged hybrid at all, much in the same way that GTA: San Andreas used a few RPG elements but by no means was an RPG hybrid, or Jade Empire uses some beat-em up elements but is not really a beat-em up. Deus Ex is a hybrid, ME1 was not. The term "shooter" didn't even come up in official channels until the early advertising for ME2 came along; with ME1 it was always either called an "RPG" or an "Action RPG" and that's what it is: an action RPG. As others have said, just because it happens to use an aspect of that game type doesn't mean it is that game type. It was only with ME2 that it became a hybrid, and unfortunately one that favoured the shooter side of things over the RPG side. And whether it does it better is a point of view. And even if it does do the shooter and combat side of things better, it certainly doesn't do the RPG side of things better.

the very first video showed TPS combat, i'm sorry if you don't like it, but it did. Mass Effect 1 was always a hybrid, you may never accept the fact but it was, hence a lot of your problems with the series.

I just said Mass Effect was an RPG that used TPS combat... did you even read what I wrote? That doesn't make it a fully-fledged hybrid any more than NWN or Dragon Age: Origins are RPG/Hack'n'Slash hybrids. Lets also keep in mind that ME1 had a dice-roll attached to its combat. Even if I did admit it was a hyrbid, I was certainly not an equal parts hybrid.

And most of my problems with the Mass Effect series started with ME2, so it's not so much a case of problems with the series so much as problems with the bastarized follow-up BioWare call a sequel.

[Kaylord]

sinosleep wrote...

Kaylord wrote...

Come on, if you start explaining ammo systems by reasons of "not punishing a player" you might as well stop any discussion about it and develop something like Bingo.
The goal is to have a coherent system which also satisfies gameplay. As such, keeping the "total shots possible" after ejecting a half full clip, and not being able to switch out those supposedly "standardized heat sinks" between weapons, must make you cry out loud about sloppy world design and stupid explanations. This thread is to have ideas about making it better!

If you're going to be anal about something as commonly accepted in practically EVERY SINGLE SHOOTER out there as not punishing players for keeping their weapons topped off by constantly reloading, then I hope to god you're being just as anal about other industry standards like carrying 150 items in your invisible back pack inventory that are accepted in practically any rpg. There are times where gameplay is going to trump lore. This isn't something unusual or new, it's the industry norm.

Excuses, excuses, and assumptions.

I am all for more realism, and it is an assumption that realism and gameplay cannot be merged.

Here some facts:
- ME2 has virtually unlimited ammo anyway because of constant respawning heatsinks
- exception is for heavy weapons and to a certain extend sniper rifles and shotguns
- the clip-mechanism is not coherent, you cannot exchange "universal" clips between your weapons and you keep total shots when ejecting a not empty clip
- the clip-mechanism provides for better shooting challenge
- the clip-mechanism captures shooterfans by providing established gamemechanics
- generalized ammo got totally bashed in Deus Ex:IW and should also upset shooterfans

My points are:
- tactical challenge of a reloading-mechanism can be achieved in more coherent ways
- ammo limitation is punishing a player, too, and can be discarded without upsetting shooterfans

So:
- unlimited ammo is better, combined with a coherent heat-dissipation-system which provides for the same tactical challenge as ammo clips

Modifié par Kaylord, 05 octobre 2010 - 03:06 .

[kalle90]

Terror_K wrote...
Whether one thinks that this is a better thing is a point of view, but they really didn't improve the old system at all

At the risk of looping the same tape: Amen.

ME1 had flawed, but interesting and original (moreso because "Everything's done already") system but ME2 is just a worse version of many modern games. Yes you can say ie. Gears doesn't have levels or powers but the core gameplay is exactly the same with the exception that Gears is miles better IMO. And no this doesn't mean Bioware should try copying harder, but bring in some originality that makes the game worthwhile (Something that isn't visible mostly in menus)

Generally I like and play shooters more than RPGs, but ME1 was a fresh take and had all the basic things I expect from a shooter so I didn't end up just watching Shepard fight. Things like ammo and health are design choices to me so I'm not too picky about how they're handled. The amount of variety and options was also great. (Yes by default ME2 had more weapon variety, but the Avenger was exactly the same for any character, even squadmates while no ME1 characters - Shepard or squadmate has the exact same weapon or armor). The effects of skill, item and mod differences; crouch improving accuracy and meaning I don't need to be glued to cover and non-regenerating health affecting how aggressive/defensive I can be makes for many more unique playthroughs than what ME2 has does. It felt more tactical playerwise

Someone would say limited ammo is more tactical, but losing the customization aspect and possibly being forced to use multiple weapons made that not happen.

The good thing is that ME3 can easily improve. Having ammo regenerate even slowly, bringing back crouch, mods and squadmate armor would be a huge improvement on ME2.

Off-topic like most of this is: Perhaps having health regenerate slowly too would be better. Makes medi-gel useful on Shepard again. Of course, personally I'd prefer if health regenerating was through mods only again. 

[Mutantcadet14]

I'm just gonna go out on a limb here with a comparison between the games in my mind.



I played ME1 and was blown away. I think we all were on some level. I spent countless hours whittling away at this game enjoying every moment and i remember a few choice conversations and feeling my heart pounding in aprehension of what would happen next.



My memories of ME1 are based solely in the story because I hated actually playing the game. The thought of playing through a second time made me cringe because the combat system just wasn't tight and there's no way around that.



In ME2 I can't stop playing it. I own all the DLC, I have seven playthroughs finished, and I have four or five more in progress. Even as I buy new games I return to mass effect 2 atleast once a week because it is, quite simply, my favorite game I've ever played.



To people who knock the new combat or the "lack of rpg elements" I can only think of how much more i enjoyed the second. Though i miss the complexity at times i am forced to admire ME2 for staying out of its own way and just letting me actually enjoy the game.



When it comes to the "ammo" changes, yeah i got a bit of whiplash too but, as a whole, i comend ME2 and so when Kaylord says...



"My points are:

- tactical challenge of a reloading-mechanism can be achieved in more coherent ways

- ammo limitation is punishing a player, too, and can be discarded without upsetting shooterfans"



... I agree. Period.

[sinosleep]

Kaylord wrote...

Excuses, excuses, and assumptions.

I am all for more realism, and it is an assumption that realism and gameplay cannot be merged.

Here some facts:
- ME2 has virtually unlimited ammo anyway because of constant respawning heatsinks
- exception is for heavy weapons and to a certain extend sniper rifles and shotguns
- the clip-mechanism is not coherent, you cannot exchange "universal" clips between your weapons and you keep total shots when ejecting a not empty clip
- the clip-mechanism provides for better shooting challenge
- the clip-mechanism captures shooterfans by providing established gamemechanics
- generalized ammo got totally bashed in Deus Ex:IW and should also upset shooterfans

My points are:
- tactical challenge of a reloading-mechanism can be achieved in more coherent ways
- ammo limitation is punishing a player, too, and can be discarded without upsetting shooterfans

So:
- unlimited ammo is better, combined with a coherent heat-dissipation-system which provides for the same tactical challenge as ammo clips

There is a WORLD of difference between a general limitation on ammo (which basically everyone in this thread has said is practically non-existant if you can be bothered with aiming at what you want to kill on any weapons not named sniper rifles) and screwing the player out of ammo cause of the reflex action to always keep your weapon topped off.

There is a reason the vast majority of games don't penalize the player for reloading early. That's just something we're going to have to agree to disagree on.

[kalle90]

Kaylord wrote...
My points are:
- tactical challenge of a reloading-mechanism can be achieved in more coherent ways
- ammo limitation is punishing a player, too, and can be discarded without upsetting shooterfans

Agreed. Interesting is that just this thread has atleast a dozen versions which are different to what ME1 or 2 had. However most posts are simple "ME1 system is awful" or "ME2 is too different" or "I prefer x", none of which really comment on the system and possible improvements.

So what's the reason object: Is the core system of ME2 (or ME1) perfect? Or are you afraid of the risk of making things worse? Or is it pessimism because Bioware said we shouldn't expect big changes?

Because frankly if done right I might even prefer one of the other ideas (ie. ammo regenerates slowly, but not when the clip/weapon is in use or that the weapon only cools down when you vent it/it overheats) over both ME1 and 2 systems. These systems could have more risk/reward, customization, remove some of the lore/believability issues...

[ashwind]

I personally like the limited ammo in ME2. At the end of ME1... with the right upgrades... it is almost impossible to overheat weapons except sniper riffles.

[sim2er]

ashwind wrote...

I personally like the limited ammo in ME2. At the end of ME1... with the right upgrades... it is almost impossible to overheat weapons except sniper riffles.

i was able to get a continual sniper stream, but it isn't helpful because you still have to aim and the recoil throws your shots off.

also, i was able to get my weapons to overheat even with a fully upgraded spectre assault rifle, but then again i used explosive rounds... the point is that i could aim well and blow my enemies away. if i didn't want to have to aim i could maintain continual fire, but then i would have to use some level of aim (cone of death ) and also manage my health because it is faster to kill enemeis with explosive rounds than normal rounds.

The real problem i had was that i wanted to have a weapon mod that increased my RoF and never found one. picture this: i have a shotgun with a RoF mod (but it increases heat generated becuase time before overheat is =/= shots before overheat) and a Frictionless materials mod (increases heat dissipation thereby balancing out the RoF mod) plus some normal ammo mod like AP rounds. this yeilds a late game shotgun that is similar to an early shotgun but you can shoot faster.

[sim2er]

I think that the real problem with the Mass Effect 1system is this: time before overheat is =/= shots before overheat but the weapon mods act differently on the weapons. To "solve" the cone of death problem is easy, just change the heat reducing mods so that instead of "increasing heat lost per second" they "add XX% shots before overheat". For consistency they would also change the heat generating weapon and ammo mods to the same system, "reducing shots before overheat".

in addition to what i previously mentioned about adding other types of weapon mods (notably Rate of Fire) i think this would be a huge improvement that would stick more closely to the lore. comments please? [constructive criticism]

[Epic777]

Kaylord wrote...

sinosleep wrote...

Kaylord wrote...

Come on, if you start explaining ammo systems by reasons of "not punishing a player" you might as well stop any discussion about it and develop something like Bingo.
The goal is to have a coherent system which also satisfies gameplay. As such, keeping the "total shots possible" after ejecting a half full clip, and not being able to switch out those supposedly "standardized heat sinks" between weapons, must make you cry out loud about sloppy world design and stupid explanations. This thread is to have ideas about making it better!

If you're going to be anal about something as commonly accepted in practically EVERY SINGLE SHOOTER out there as not punishing players for keeping their weapons topped off by constantly reloading, then I hope to god you're being just as anal about other industry standards like carrying 150 items in your invisible back pack inventory that are accepted in practically any rpg. There are times where gameplay is going to trump lore. This isn't something unusual or new, it's the industry norm.

Excuses, excuses, and assumptions.

I am all for more realism, and it is an assumption that realism and gameplay cannot be merged.

Here some facts:
- ME2 has virtually unlimited ammo anyway because of constant respawning heatsinks
- exception is for heavy weapons and to a certain extend sniper rifles and shotguns
- the clip-mechanism is not coherent, you cannot exchange "universal" clips between your weapons and you keep total shots when ejecting a not empty clip
- the clip-mechanism provides for better shooting challenge
- the clip-mechanism captures shooterfans by providing established gamemechanics
- generalized ammo got totally bashed in Deus Ex:IW and should also upset shooterfans

My points are:
- tactical challenge of a reloading-mechanism can be achieved in more coherent ways
- ammo limitation is punishing a player, too, and can be discarded without upsetting shooterfans

So:
- unlimited ammo is better, combined with a coherent heat-dissipation-system which provides for the same tactical challenge as ammo clips

If my memories serve me correct with Deus Ex:IW you had a 'pool of ammo', with all your weapons drained ammo same pool. I didn't like it because there was no real indication of how much ammo you had for each weapon.

A few points, thermal clips and overheat system are designed for the same purpose; as a gameplay mechanic. Its to make the player at least slightly careful about shooting (cannot just press the right mouse button continually) and for balance (cannot 'abuse' powerful weapons).
Another thing both systems 'punish' players and this is a good thing, a necessity. Morrowind makes it very clear at different parts of the game without certain  spells such as levitation the game would be much harder. System Shock 2 made it very clear from the start there was no 'fun and gun'. Both games 'punished' players who did not adhere to the rules.

I am not completely against hybrid system or going back to the me1 overheat system however I have reservations.
I wonder how they would hold up in a faster combat system such as me2. Secondly how would weapons be balanced since limiting ammo has been a tried a tested combat mechanic as a means of weapon balance.  

[northernninja]

I can't believe that you people actually enjoyed the unlimited ammo in mass effect, clips add a sense of realism to the combat, plus you got more of a challenge and it gives you a reason to switch your guns. rather than keep shooting everbody with an assault rifle. also for those of you who are trying to say unlimited ammo is cool, I can already see who the treky fans are now. you know you should just say the unlimited ammo comes from solar panels on your gun. dur da dur!?!?

[Epic777]

northernninja wrote...

I can't believe that you people actually enjoyed the unlimited ammo in mass effect, clips add a sense of realism to the combat, plus you got more of a challenge and it gives you a reason to switch your guns. rather than keep shooting everbody with an assault rifle. also for those of you who are trying to say unlimited ammo is cool, I can already see who the treky fans are now. you know you should just say the unlimited ammo comes from solar panels on your gun. dur da dur!?!?

That was a little uncalled for, I was never a fan of the overheat system from me1 but if people do thats their opinion and there is nothing wrong with that, In short keep it civil.

[Daeion]

northernninja wrote...

I can't believe that you people actually enjoyed the unlimited ammo in mass effect, clips add a sense of realism to the combat, plus you got more of a challenge and it gives you a reason to switch your guns. rather than keep shooting everbody with an assault rifle. also for those of you who are trying to say unlimited ammo is cool, I can already see who the treky fans are now. you know you should just say the unlimited ammo comes from solar panels on your gun. dur da dur!?!?

Sorry, but I never uesd anyhting but the assault rifle on my soldier and it doesn't add any challenge because clips are everywhere. 

[Terror_K]

northernninja wrote...

I can't believe that you people actually enjoyed the unlimited ammo in mass effect, clips add a sense of realism to the combat, plus you got more of a challenge and it gives you a reason to switch your guns. rather than keep shooting everbody with an assault rifle. also for those of you who are trying to say unlimited ammo is cool, I can already see who the treky fans are now. you know you should just say the unlimited ammo comes from solar panels on your gun. dur da dur!?!?

Yes, but it was different than the standard, and I personally didn't actually like having to switch my weapons, since I prefer to specalise. The Thermal Clip system screwed up my importing of three different ME1 Vanguards because each was designed to specialise differently, but now they're pretty much all the same. I created different builds in ME1 will all kinds of classes who used different weapons and different powers together, but they're all kind of gone. Not that it matters too much when ME2 combat is so repetitive and dull that I don't feel like playing it as much as I played ME1 anyway, but still. I also found it more tactical in ME1 managing my heat-levels at early-to-mid game than I found ME2's method which is just as tactical as any other shooter and brought nothing new to the table in this respect. It's only "more tactical" because suddenly there's a new restriction on things that's been forced on us that doesn't make sense since the whole universe has decided to change to an infinitely inferior system.

Also, speaking of that, it seems you don't even know anything of the lore given your comments. There is still technically :"unlimited ammo" (which isn't truly unlimited at all lore-wise), but the heating is managed differently, and in a far more backwards and far less logical way, not to mention all the holes in it all. And that's where most of the problems lie: in the lore and canon, and as far as that's concerned the damage is already done. It probably would have been better if BioWare simply ignored it entirely lore-wise and just threw them in there... but no, they had to come up with a lame and contrived explanation. And given that the damage has been done, I'd prefer they focus on fixing other areas of the game than this aspect. That, and I doubt they would. A hyrbrid system would be good, and they could work that into the lore somewhat (though it would also run the risk of being just as ridiculous and contrived as it was the first time around) by simply acknowledging how stupid it was in the first place to limit the weapons so much and have them suddenly depending on a finite resource entirely. They seem to be keen to poke fun at ME1, even undeservingly at times... it'll be interesting to see if they're just as willing to admit and poke fun at ME2 in ME3.

[Kavadas]

Terror_K, please watch Christina Norman's "Where did my inventory go?" presentation because she directly addresses why they felt thermal clips were a necessary retcon to ME1.

It basically boiled down to ME1'a combat being pretty sucktastic, which it was, and the Bioware team being woefully inexperienced at making decent shooter mechanics and how they planned to address the issue for ME2.

What Bioware realized was that ME1's overheating system made certain weapon concepts either impossible to include or absurdly imbalanced (without even counting abilities and modifications).

It was a constricting system which didn't have room for a lot of weapon variety inside of the individual classes themselves... which makes sense because every single weapon in a single weapon category performed identically with the only deviation coming from three statistics (damage, accuracy, shots before overheat).

But don't take my word for it, watch the presentation and let the devs explain it to you.

Then you can come back here and irrationally QQ some more about it

Modifié par Kavadas, 06 octobre 2010 - 12:07 .

[sim2er]

Kavadas wrote...

Terror_K, please watch Christina Norman's "Where did my inventory go?" presentation because she directly addresses why they felt thermal clips were a necessary retcon to ME1.

It basically boiled down to ME1'a combat being pretty sucktastic, which it was, and the Bioware team being woefully inexperienced at making decent shooter mechanics and how they planned to address the issue for ME2.

What Bioware realized was that ME1's overheating system made certain weapon concepts either impossible to include or absurdly imbalanced (without even counting abilities and modifications).

It was a constricting system which didn't have room for a lot of weapon variety inside of the individual classes themselves... which makes sense because every single weapon in a single weapon category performed identically with the only deviation coming from three statistics (damage, accuracy, shots before overheat).

But don't take my word for it, watch the presentation and let the devs explain it to you.

Then you can come back here and irrationally QQ some more about it

Thanks for this, although some of the statements you made are generalized and therefore not entirely accurate (so thanks for the link ). However, as they stated it was a controversial decision. As i have stated the OP is correct in terms of lore, but as others have said the gameplay side was broken. They also borrowed concepts from other shooters because that is a bioware weakness. Unfortunately there are some advantages to an inventory that are lost with the current system (but it still "cuts the junk"). Primarily, finding research and researching it is not "satisfying" to me, and i can't tell the difference 'before' and 'after' the way i could with ME1. i also believe that now the shooter core is there the system can be improved, particularly with regards to the lore gap as well as some of the problems with the ammo system. For example, one thing that bothered me was that the clips were interchangable until it came to useing clips from my pistol pool in my sniper rifle. (in addition to all the other complaints i have previously made)

one problem i see is that sniper rifles are too powerful but don't have enough ammo. ME1 addressed this issue with the assassination strike power. i run out of ammo with the widow easily, but it is 1 hit 1 kill no matter where i hit them. the idea with snipers is supposed to be that you aim for the head. what i am implying is that the snipers in me2 be nerfed some, but maintain a 1hit-kill for headshots and make a power that lets you hit anywehere for the same effect (plus double the carrying cap for snipers)

[sinosleep]

I brought up that presentation 5 pages ago and no one had anything to say, lol.