133 réponses à ce sujet

[Devos]

As a game, in balance, for ME2 is quite simply one of the best games ever made. It's pure shooter mechanics though are well behind the curve. Shooter is such a crowded genre that any slight mis-step in those stakes can be painfully obvious as there have probably been a dozen games released that does that aspect better. For ME2's weapon switch times, lack of blind fire and long time to regen/compared to survivability were all things that put it behind the curve. The absolute killer though was the ammo system.

A lot has been said about this, usually the main charge is that it doesn't make sense in continuity. On this I want to be neutral: game play is primary. If continuity must be bent or broken for a better game, so be it. On the side of defending ME2's ammo system there are quite a few arguments. The ones I've seen most often are:

- I never had an issue with it, you just suck
- It's better than ME1
- It does make sense in continuity

I want to argue the point in a new way which renders the above arguments for the thermal clips moot:

It's a bad mechanic compared with how other shooters handle ammo.

Shooters which handle ammo better seem to fall into two camps. There are games which use the ammo system to force a choice and there are games which make ammo unobtrusive.

The oldest and clearest example of a game which uses ammo to force a choice is Halo: Combat Evolved. The human weapons were almost always better, easier to use and had higher ammo capacities, in CE you couldn't even reload Covenant weapons. The problem is ammo for them was often sparse. Being able to carry only two weapons you could hold onto that awesome pistol or shotgun, be sparing with it and hope there will be ammo drops up ahead, or you could pick up a covenant weapon. Halo games continue to force this trade off of sticking with your favoured weapons or just grab what's available.

Gears of War functions on a similar basis most obviously with the superior, chainsaw equipped Lancer as compared with the Locust Boltok assault riffle which is dropped by near every grunt you face. GoW2 on higher difficulties further pushes the trade off. The survivability of enemies on the highest difficulty is ramped up massively however a head-shot from a sniper weapon will still give you an instant kill. All those weapons have very low capacities. GoW2 regularly pushes your ammo reserves but never threatens a slow depletion if you are willing to trade down.

Bulletstorm recently had another twist. Ammo drops through the game are very sparse however you can spend points earned by skill shots (kills performed in a particular way) to buy ammo. If you are constantly looking for opportunities for skill shots you will be rolling in ammo. Ammo conservation quickly becomes secondary to racking up points.

Call of Duty (from Modern Warfare onwards at least, I'm not familiar with the series before then) falls into the unobtrusive camp. Every enemy drops a gun, you might have to trade down but frankly the difference between common guns and your starting stuff isn't that marked. On top of that starting ammo capacities are high. The only time I have ever had an issue with ammo in single player was doing the akimbo pistol achievement in Black Ops.

Battlefield: Bad Company 2 also makes ammo unobtrusive. There are regular resupplies which let you refill your ammo. The only time you really risk running out ammo for a weapon is being very liberal in your use of heavy weapon.

In Mass Effect 2 there are no choices to make, you have your guns, you are stuck with them. Resupplies are sparse and ammo capacities are low. Enemy ammo drops are random. In practice, in three play throughs I have only completely run out of ammo once, on that ocasion I was the victim of the random number generator with no drops from the reachable enemies and quite a few out of reach in a long section. Most of the time the upshot is a tedious thermal clip hunt at the end of every encounter.

The only game I can think of in the last few years which functions in a similar way to ME2 is Transformers: War for Cybertron. That was kind of a fun game but the ammo system was appalling. Ammo pick-ups were very sparse and easy to miss. Though you had weapon choices they all had the same ammo issues, you couldn't "trade down".

To some extent Dead Space 2 in it's early stages where you carrying capacity is very low. In the latter stages the ridiculous ammo efficiency of the ripper paired with stasis upgrades and much larger ammo capacities renders ammo moot. Early to mid game ammo can be a real issue. The thing is Dead Space is a survival-horror shooter, ammo starves come with the territory while they make much less sense in Mass Effect.

I actually like ME1's cooling system but I can see the problems. Early game it was too restrictive, late game you could literally have little (or in a special case actually zero) heat generation and chunk out enough damage to drop enemies quickly, even on insanity. It wasn't perfect but it did add choices and depth. The trade offs of cooling to damage and utility offered by ammo and weapon upgrades added depth and is something we used to discuss a lot for character optimisation. What depth has the ME2 thermal clips system added?

For ME3 I want to see one of two things in terms of ammo/cooling. Either for it to be unobtrusive, if it can't add depth don't add busy work, much higher ammo capacities, much more frequent drops/opportunities to recover ammo. Preferably though add some depth or choice. Ammo starve is not a threat that should ever really be delivered on, or at least when it looms the player should be able to make a trade off to avoid it.

For those of you that read all that, thanks for sticking with me. I know this is a pretty well trod issue but one I still think is relevant.

[Epic777]

There so many threads on this subject.

[JaegerBane]

I'm not totally sure what your point is (and yes, I stuck with your post until the end). It seems that your main issue was how ammo was handled, that better weapons should use rarer ammo, or better weapons should be rarer, etc.

I'm actually on the opposite side of the fence here. ME1's approach to 'ammo' - that heat was the main limit - made the game feel quite significantly different to other shooter-based games. You adopted tactics that didn't work in other games - such as turbo camping where it was possible to fight entire battles from a single spot, provided it offered enough cover.

While I'd argue this was an issue in a multiplayer game, I wasn't convinced such a drastic measure was needed in ME2 - how a player played the game was their own business. The 'ammo' concept, IMHO, was largely a pointless change - while it stopped the player from camping, the fact that 'ammo' was universal and plentiful eliminated any need for more conservative tactics.

It's a moot point, however, Much as I feel the system was redundant, it was also a system that worked - and since that is the bottom line, I see no need for further changes.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 30 avril 2011 - 03:08 .

[corporal doody]

didnt read any of that cept the end.
i tried playing ME1 on insanity with my level 60 soldier the other day....and i had a firefight that lasted 30 min!! i was shocked!!! that was with a kaidan and garrus as squadies. the assault rifle wasnt doing much in relation to how many times i was hitting them. the shotgun and sniper with explosive ammo (the 500dmg and force one) made them bounce all over the place...usually out of view and behind a crate...then their shields would regen.
-the heatsink setup works for me. dont need to retcon the lore. advancements in technology required new weapons that had better penetration and stopping power. firing the new weapons made it over heat a great deal faster so continual replacement of heat sinks for proper use are necessary.
-if the developer wont provide..my imagination will...but im sure in this case they alluded it to....or it was mentioned somewhere...i forget


actual gameplay issues with the ME2 ammo? none. it made the action fast paced. good thing is your team  mates never ran out....so just have to move them around...conserve yours

Modifié par corporal doody, 30 avril 2011 - 03:16 .

[Clonedzero]

i honestly dont understand how people ever had ammo issues in ME2. the ONLY time i ever ran out or low on ammo was when i was using the vindicator as my primary weapon (note i dont play snipers, sniping is for cowards yup i said it!) but every combat area in ME2 was pretty much littered with ammo, enemies drop it constantly. they shine too so they're easy to spot from a distance. not to be insulting but its SHOCKING that people had ammo problems in ME2.

i think anyone that had issues with it tried using a powerful weapon that had low ammo capacity and solely used that weapon rather than switching it up every now and then. good example. the vindicator easily does alot more damage than the avenger. its got significantly lower ammo capacity though to help balance them out. due to that i personally prefer the avenger (no dlc weapons). without that balancing factor it wouldnt even be a question to use the vindicator instead of it.

i liked the fact it helped promote using multiple weapons. if the vanguard had tons of ammo with the shotgun i would have never discovered how much i love using an SMG/AR with a vanguard. hell i even charge sometimes with my avenger and just dump a clip into their face, works pretty well when im too lazy to switch to my shotty.

[bald man in a boat]

With ME3 less than a year away it's probably time to get over it. And like Epic777 said, there's so many threads about this already.

Modifié par bald man in a boat, 30 avril 2011 - 03:17 .

[Parah_Salin]

It really didn't bother me. I mean there were times in other shooters where limited ammo was used to good game play effect, and that's kind of eliminated/severely lessened in ME2 (but still could be possible for some specially designed mission), the game has so many other things to consider game play wise.

All of this being said, I'd like to see lower spare ammo capacities on the high cap weapons and less spare ammo around overall just so we do have to conserve *some*...Also possibly make SMGs/pistols use different thermal clips, so that there is some decent reason to use them in a "all classes get all weapons" type thing.

[corporal doody]

on my insanity run...id try and place my team in spot where we could channel in the badguys. Suck um to tight quarters and you can concentrate your fire power. If the battlefield was too big....close up position so the badguys dont overwhelm. TWO avenues max! i would run around if space permitted to draw fire..or the squadies would take fire so i could flank. it was rare that i ran completely out of ammo,.. while pooping and snooping you can always find a clip.

Modifié par corporal doody, 30 avril 2011 - 03:35 .

[JetsoverEverything]

its not so bad. maybe im just used to it.

[TheConfidenceMan]

If they wanted to add a tactical element to the shooting a better idea would have been to have a vent function instead of reload. Heat builds up, and instead of dissipating on it's own you have to stop and vent it periodically.

But effectively all the thermal clip system does is turn it into any other shooter where your guns need ammo. A silly retcon to justify a pointless change to make the game more mainstream.

[Ahglock]

While I agree that they did ammo poorly, they seem to be changing to what you called an unobtrusive system in that you can pick up guns off of enemies and I suspect they will be in the same ballpark of effectiveness.

[Walker White]

TheConfidenceMan wrote...

If they wanted to add a tactical element to the shooting a better idea would have been to have a vent function instead of reload. Heat builds up, and instead of dissipating on it's own you have to stop and vent it periodically.

Unless you are saying this should be shorter than the cool down times in ME1, this is functionally equivalent to what happens when an ME1 weapon overheats.  If the time is short, then there is really no challenge, given the heavy cover nature of ME2.  If the time is the same as ME1, then you get incredibly long battles.

Weapons must be resource limited in some way to provide a challenge.  That resource can either be time (ME1) or some explicit in-game commodity (ammo).  Using time as a resource slows down the flow of the game and does not appeal to a large section of the fan base.  Furthermore, if the AI in ME3 is going to do smart things like rush our cover positions, then a time-based "reload" is fatal.

So that means ammo.  At that point, you are just arguing about what form the ammo argument should take.

[Clonedzero]

Walker White wrote...

TheConfidenceMan wrote...

If they wanted to add a tactical element to the shooting a better idea would have been to have a vent function instead of reload. Heat builds up, and instead of dissipating on it's own you have to stop and vent it periodically.

Unless you are saying this should be shorter than the cool down times in ME1, this is functionally equivalent to what happens when an ME1 weapon overheats.  If the time is short, then there is really no challenge, given the heavy cover nature of ME2.  If the time is the same as ME1, then you get incredibly long battles.

Weapons must be resource limited in some way to provide a challenge.  That resource can either be time (ME1) or some explicit in-game commodity (ammo).  Using time as a resource slows down the flow of the game and does not appeal to a large section of the fan base.  Furthermore, if the AI in ME3 is going to do smart things like rush our cover positions, then a time-based "reload" is fatal.

So that means ammo.  At that point, you are just arguing about what form the ammo argument should take.

he means that your heat builds up and doesnt lower unless you vent it. it'd work exactly like ammo, except instead of a number that goes down, its a heat bar that goes up, and instead of reloading you vent. thats all.

[Notanything]

Thermal clips are dumb. The logic is dumb, the lore for it is dumb. It was a poorly executed addition, and I just want a hybrid of thermal clip using weapons and non-modifiable overheating weapons. People don't see the gameplay possibilities of having overheating weaponry return. I can see it being quite a challenge on it's own to maintain one, but rewarding at the same time.

Modifié par Notanything, 30 avril 2011 - 04:43 .

[TheConfidenceMan]

Walker White wrote...

TheConfidenceMan wrote...

If they wanted to add a tactical element to the shooting a better idea would have been to have a vent function instead of reload. Heat builds up, and instead of dissipating on it's own you have to stop and vent it periodically.

Unless you are saying this should be shorter than the cool down times in ME1, this is functionally equivalent to what happens when an ME1 weapon overheats.  If the time is short, then there is really no challenge, given the heavy cover nature of ME2.  If the time is the same as ME1, then you get incredibly long battles.

Weapons must be resource limited in some way to provide a challenge.  That resource can either be time (ME1) or some explicit in-game commodity (ammo).  Using time as a resource slows down the flow of the game and does not appeal to a large section of the fan base.  Furthermore, if the AI in ME3 is going to do smart things like rush our cover positions, then a time-based "reload" is fatal.

So that means ammo.  At that point, you are just arguing about what form the ammo argument should take.

Uh, what? This is very simple. Like Mass Effect, the weapon heats up when you fire, only it doesn't dissipate on it's own. You hit 'R' to vent heat whenever you want. Functionally similar to ME2's thermal clips, only it doesn't require a physical resource that you run out of and have to scrounge for, and it's more in line lore-wise with the technology in ME1.

[Ahglock]

corporal doody wrote...

didnt read any of that cept the end.
i tried playing ME1 on insanity with my level 60 soldier the other day....and i had a firefight that lasted 30 min!! i was shocked!!! that was with a kaidan and garrus as squadies. the assault rifle wasnt doing much in relation to how many times i was hitting them. the shotgun and sniper with explosive ammo (the 500dmg and force one) made them bounce all over the place...usually out of view and behind a crate...then their shields would regen.
-the heatsink setup works for me. dont need to retcon the lore. advancements in technology required new weapons that had better penetration and stopping power. firing the new weapons made it over heat a great deal faster so continual replacement of heat sinks for proper use are necessary.
-if the developer wont provide..my imagination will...but im sure in this case they alluded it to....or it was mentioned somewhere...i forget


actual gameplay issues with the ME2 ammo? none. it made the action fast paced. good thing is your team  mates never ran out....so just have to move them around...conserve yours

That was an issue with ME1 insanity, not a issue with heat sinks.  ME1 insanity meant every enemy had a gagilion HP and immunity.  Even with double heat sinks so you never overheated enemies took far too long to kill.  If they had kept the ME1 insanity and given you the current ammo system you would have used all your ammo in an attempt to kill one guy.  

They went with ammo and paper shields and non-existent armor in ME2.  So while fights are faster it isn't the ammo that does it, it is the much less durable enemies.  If they had kept the old heat sink system with the new difficulty system very few people would notice a difference.  You lean out of cover for a smidge, your shields get blown off you return to cover and the heat drops. Vanguards might notice it when they charged a group since they might overheat before everyone was dead.  But for every other class and how they are played by most you just would not notice the difference.  Okay the really bad shots would because they are some how running out of ammo in ME2. 

[Ahglock]

TheConfidenceMan wrote...

If they wanted to add a tactical element to the shooting a better idea would have been to have a vent function instead of reload. Heat builds up, and instead of dissipating on it's own you have to stop and vent it periodically.

But effectively all the thermal clip system does is turn it into any other shooter where your guns need ammo. A silly retcon to justify a pointless change to make the game more mainstream.

By the way I really like this idea, it is much better than the current system.  

[MajorStranger]

Devos wrote...


The oldest and clearest example of a game which uses ammo to force a choice is Halo: Combat Evolved. The human weapons were almost always better, easier to use and had higher ammo capacities, in CE you couldn't even reload Covenant weapons.

Needler. nuff said.

[E-Type XR]

I'm completely on the side of thermal clips, in my opinion, they work better than a heat system on a fast paced game, the kind ME3 is promising to be. However, maybe a system similar to the Plasma Repeater in Halo: Reach, but with an absolute Heat Cap?

[Notanything]

I guess I was right, people really don't even have strategical fighting in Mass Effect 2. Now it's being called fast paced, even for a game we don't truly know what combat will be like yet?

Modifié par Notanything, 30 avril 2011 - 04:56 .

[E-Type XR]

I said, "promising"

[Notanything]

Oh I can't wait to see what lies ahead for the apparent RPG features it's supposed to have. Mass Effect has always been "SHOOT AT IT UNTIL IT DIES", but hopefully not as much in the third..

[JMTolan]

There is no storyline reason I should not be able to choose to eject the thermal clip, and there is equally less reason I shouldn't be able to fire my weapon once I'm out of thermal clips. ME guns very clearly had unlimited ammo, and they still did in story in ME2, just not in effect.

Be consistent, Bioware. If you're going to do the same ammo system, change the lore. If not, change the ammo system. (I think it'd be smarter to do the latter myself.)

Personally, I still think that it's a bad choice. Unlimited ammo, particularly in a universe that seemed to have such advanced heat dispersion tech, is much better than limited ammo, particularly enforced limited ammo.

Oh, and Bioware? Either give Snipers more shots per clip, or let them carry more clips. No reasonable sniper would only have ten to twelve shots when going into even a mid-sized firefight.

-Tolan

Modifié par JMTolan, 30 avril 2011 - 05:14 .

[henno13]

I think they should use a hybrid of the two systems. It's simple, you can shoot as much as you want, but when the weapon overheats, you have a certain amount of spare heatsinks that can be swapped out as opposed to waiting for it to cool down as you did in ME1.

[Nohvarr]

I prefer clips to venting. There's no price to venting it whenever I want. Having thermal clips forces you to be more aware of how you use your shots. This dictates which guns I use for my various characters. My adept Shepard generally rolls with the Vindicator while most of my Soldiers use the Mattock or Revant because they can afford to use armor parts that carry extra thermal clips. My adept needs to improve his Biotics and thus can not spare the space for extra thermal clips. So he uses the Vindicator because it's burst fire works well and it has a large enough ammo pool for his needs.