791 réponses à ce sujet

[Clonedzero]

Halo Quea wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...

you know, people arguing against it, you lost. its confirmed thermal clips are making a return.
personally its the right call, it heavily improves gameplay rather than stubbornly going back. and going to thermal clips and then stopping using them would be just as awkward and weird as the transfer TO thermal clips.

they help gameplay in many ways.
1.) keeps combat fluid, so you're not sitting in one spot the entire fight every fight.
2.) balances guns. the more powerful the gun the less ammo you get for it. evens things up.
3.) supports using multiple weapons.
4.) adds a tactical level to the combat, (do i wanna use my sniper rounds right now, not knowing if i can get any pick ups in the near future or should i save them?)
5.) makes your aim actually count. having a limited number of shots means you actually have to aim. in ME1 you could just spray in their general direction without any consequences whatsoever

people freaking over the lore need to calm down. it was a very minor change that i doubt most people even realized was a change in the lore. they introduced reasoning into it (weak sure but its there), thermal clips are a canon part of the ME universe now. deal with it.

sounds like somebody needs to go play a shooter

whats wrong with wanting tactical and fun combat in ME3? well crafted gameplay and heavy story and dialogue would be brilliant. theres nothing wrong with wanting well crafted combat rather than the clunky and awkward  combat of ME1.

[Clonedzero]

Jebel Krong wrote...

1. you can do that anyway with either game, but that's the players fault, not the game's.
2. ME1 depended on the setup, i preferred accurate burst-firing, personally, made the firefights more intense. doesn't make ME2's system any better - if i want to play a primarily sniping infiltrator, then i shouldn't be forced to go close-range in every fight when i run out of ammo, especially if the skill-tree doesn't support dual-flexibility - you have to specialise in ME2.
4. you still have to specialise, and goes back to #2 - the RPing aspect is built around customising and specialisation of your playstyle, so it should be supported, not hobbled. the ammo was there for different varieties of enemies, not the guns, so your argument falls down there. it's a terrible idea anyway - why should one weapon, used properly and situationally, be more effective than another against different enemies? (excluding heavy weapons because they work fundamentally differently). again ammo is the differentiator, not the guns as they are class-assigned for the class playstyle.
5. don't tell me how to play, i know how to prioritise etc. what is INCREDIBLY STUPID is being a specialist who then runs out of ammo towards then end of a firefight and has to resort to a back-up weapon because the game dictates that you don't go properly equipped for a mission. it's immersion-breaking, illogical and retarded. that applies to any non-soldier class btw.

1.) yeah, it sure is the players fault, but the game should be designed to make that not preferable.
2.)thats the thing, classes have strengths but they should be able to ALWAYS use those strengths, there some be enemies that get close up on an infiltrator for example. there should be enemies that are on towers or something at long range against vanguards. ect. always playing exclusively to your strength is bland gameplay.
4.) yes, just because you tend to specialize and having strengths doesnt mean you should never have to encounter stuff you're not particularly good at fighting. an infiltrator should never be able to snipe everything on a mission. a vanguard should not be able to stay in CQC the entire mission.
5.)  no its not. if you select a weapon with a low ammo capacity then you should be aware of that and play to that situation. its not "immersion breaking", how is it? that makes no sense. of course you're not going to have unlimited supplies. you're saying because you run out of ammo and need to use another weapon that "breaks immersion"? how so? if shepard ran out of ammo he'd use a different gun. its not illogical at all because you can only carry so much with you at a time.

if you're a sniper and run out of rifle rounds, what are you going to do? you're gonna pull out your side arm and use that till you find more ammo/supplies. its perfectly logical, realistic and intelligent game design to balance out things.

if you're constantly running out of ammo with the widow use the viper, or something else. its there to balance out weapons. i use the avenger over the vindicator because it has a much larger ammo capacity but the vindicator is otherwise way better.

[Someone With Mass]

I really hate when people say "Go play a shooter"

MASS EFFECT IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE A SHOOTER, YOU ****ING IDIOTS!

[tonnactus]

Someone With Mass wrote...

I really hate when people say "Go play a shooter"

MASS EFFECT IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE A SHOOTER, YOU ****ING IDIOTS!

Right,because every game with guns is one,right? As are Alpha Protocol and all Fallout games...
And Kotor.
And every game with swords is a hack and slash.

Modifié par tonnactus, 25 mai 2011 - 04:18 .

[JayhartRIC]

kregano wrote...

Alpha-Centuri wrote...

Might be a little off topic, but here goes. Why are there thermal clips on Jacob's loyalty mission?

Gameplay mechanic.

The thermal clips are actually the remains of enemy weapons that are omnigelled and repurposed as thermal clips.  I just made that up.  Works for me.  

[Cloaking_Thane]

and the eternal my dad can beat up your dad continues

[Someone With Mass]

tonnactus wrote...
Right,because every game with guns is one,right? As are Alpha Protocol and all Fallout games...
And Kotor.
And every game with swords is a hack and slash.

And I guess a game can't be a combination of two genres, like Fallout 3, right?

Because that'd be too easy.

[AlexRmF]

Clonedzero wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

1. if you did that at all you weren't playing properly anyway (though could be forgiven given ME1's generally awful cover system and combat mechanics).

1.) yes. in ME1. in ME2 with ME1's ammo system you'd just sit on one spot everyfight easily. or you could at least. thats stupid.

I disagree here... think about a sniper... he's not supposed to move, the whole purpose of a sniper is to sit in the same spot and take head-shots killing everyone without moving an inch.
also, I find this approach a more tactical one than rushing in and giving away your safe-spot for a chance to greet your foes.
unlimited ammo for normal weapons is the right way, no matter what everyone says (companions have it also) they should put the venting option or the reload one just to have a break, but don't scatter ammo through the levels like it happend in ME2

[Iakus]

Phaedon wrote...

I still don't see why you ignore the fact that heatsinks are the same thing as thermal clips. The thing is, you remove heatsinks eventually, when the materials are too burned up to be efficient, whereas you drop heatsinks ASAP so that you won't stand in front of a krogan waiting for your weapon to be usable again. As you see, the only retcons exist because that's what you want them to be.

Because the codex says they're not the same.  They aren't even referred to the same way.  It's like saying a steel canteen and a dixie cup are the same because they are both used for drinking water.

[CroGamer002]

tonnactus wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

I really hate when people say "Go play a shooter"

MASS EFFECT IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE A SHOOTER, YOU ****ING IDIOTS!

Right,because every game with guns is one,right? As are Alpha Protocol and all Fallout games...
And Kotor.
And every game with swords is a hack and slash.

Some news dude.

Alpha Protocol and Fallout 3 & New Vegas ARE shooters!
I mean, Christ!

It is very obvious you didn't played many shooters nor you know definition of shooter.

Modifié par Mesina2, 25 mai 2011 - 04:47 .

[Sir Edric]

tonnactus wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

I really hate when people say "Go play a shooter"

MASS EFFECT IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE A SHOOTER, YOU ****ING IDIOTS!

Right,because every game with guns is one,right? As are Alpha Protocol and all Fallout games...
And Kotor.
And every game with swords is a hack and slash.

*facepalm*

[AlexRmF]

Clonedzero wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

1. you can do that anyway with either game, but that's the players fault, not the game's.
2. ME1 depended on the setup, i preferred accurate burst-firing, personally, made the firefights more intense. doesn't make ME2's system any better - if i want to play a primarily sniping infiltrator, then i shouldn't be forced to go close-range in every fight when i run out of ammo, especially if the skill-tree doesn't support dual-flexibility - you have to specialise in ME2.
4. you still have to specialise, and goes back to #2 - the RPing aspect is built around customising and specialisation of your playstyle, so it should be supported, not hobbled. the ammo was there for different varieties of enemies, not the guns, so your argument falls down there. it's a terrible idea anyway - why should one weapon, used properly and situationally, be more effective than another against different enemies? (excluding heavy weapons because they work fundamentally differently). again ammo is the differentiator, not the guns as they are class-assigned for the class playstyle.
5. don't tell me how to play, i know how to prioritise etc. what is INCREDIBLY STUPID is being a specialist who then runs out of ammo towards then end of a firefight and has to resort to a back-up weapon because the game dictates that you don't go properly equipped for a mission. it's immersion-breaking, illogical and retarded. that applies to any non-soldier class btw.

1.) yeah, it sure is the players fault, but the game should be designed to make that not preferable.
2.)thats the thing, classes have strengths but they should be able to ALWAYS use those strengths, there some be enemies that get close up on an infiltrator for example. there should be enemies that are on towers or something at long range against vanguards. ect. always playing exclusively to your strength is bland gameplay.
4.) yes, just because you tend to specialize and having strengths doesnt mean you should never have to encounter stuff you're not particularly good at fighting. an infiltrator should never be able to snipe everything on a mission. a vanguard should not be able to stay in CQC the entire mission.
5.)  no its not. if you select a weapon with a low ammo capacity then you should be aware of that and play to that situation. its not "immersion breaking", how is it? that makes no sense. of course you're not going to have unlimited supplies. you're saying because you run out of ammo and need to use another weapon that "breaks immersion"? how so? if shepard ran out of ammo he'd use a different gun. its not illogical at all because you can only carry so much with you at a time.

if you're a sniper and run out of rifle rounds, what are you going to do? you're gonna pull out your side arm and use that till you find more ammo/supplies. its perfectly logical, realistic and intelligent game design to balance out things.

if you're constantly running out of ammo with the widow use the viper, or something else. its there to balance out weapons. i use the avenger over the vindicator because it has a much larger ammo capacity but the vindicator is otherwise way better.

man.. I really don't know why you keep on pushing this envelope
You're supposed to have some advantages by being specialised in something .. that's as valid in gaming as it is in real-life
I also don't like to be forced into something that contradicts even the universe's rules (the "bullets" should be unlimited in ME from what the lore says), and how come my companions have unlimited ammo and I have to swap out my favorite weapon just because a fight took too long, or I'm a bad shot?
also, if I use the best weapon, I'm sure as hell going to take all the ammo I need to only use that weapon, getting rid of all the other garbage that I don't want to use.
these limitations might have served a purpose but it doesn't mean they should be perpetuated.
I personally haven't used the sniper rifle on my infiltrator build because I knew I'd run out of ammo really quick and I didn't want to bother changing weapons<_<

[Aimi]

AlexRmF wrote...

I also don't like to be forced into something that contradicts even the universe's rules (the "bullets" should be unlimited in ME from what the lore says), and how come my companions have unlimited ammo and I have to swap out my favorite weapon just because a fight took too long, or I'm a bad shot?

Gameplay and lore segregation has always existed.  Going by the lore, biotics are supposed to be limited to brief use of their powers in a relatively short firefight before being exhausted enough to have to chow down on energy bars and rest up; three guesses to whether this is in either game, and the first two don't count.  Going by the lore, infinite constant weapon firing without overheating should be impossible (also violates the the laws of thermodynamics), but it's very easily possible in ME1.

[Murmillos]

daqs wrote...

(also violates the the laws of thermodynamics), but it's very easily possible in ME1.

How is venting heat violating the laws of thermodynamics? Is my PC violationg the laws of thermodynamics right now? I mean, its doing exactly right now what the guns in ME1 did.

[tonnactus]

Someone With Mass wrote...


And I guess a game can't be a combination of two genres, like Fallout 3, right?

Because that'd be too easy.

So Dragon Age Origins is a combination of an rpg and hack and slash...
Some people here should look at least at wikipedia definitions of game genres. It couldnt be so hard.

Modifié par tonnactus, 25 mai 2011 - 05:44 .

[Someone With Mass]

tonnactus wrote...
So Dragon Age Origins is a combination of an rpg and hack and slash...
Some people here should look at least at wikipedia definitions of game genres. It couldnt be so hard.

And what makes it so dangerous if people think it is a combination of those two? Does it somehow make DA:O less of a game or something silly like that?

God, people can nag about the most trivial things...

[Savber100]

I find it HILARIOUS how people whine about how the guns in ME2 ruins the lore of ME but don't bother to mention how the codex showed the Batarians as this


but then RETCONED it with a DLC into this:



Seriously, we whine about the most minuscule things.

Point is... the Codex isn't definite. 

Modifié par Savber100, 25 mai 2011 - 06:03 .

[Clonedzero]

AlexRmF wrote...
man.. I really don't know why you keep on pushing this envelope
You're supposed to have some advantages by being specialised in something .. that's as valid in gaming as it is in real-life
I also don't like to be forced into something that contradicts even the universe's rules (the "bullets" should be unlimited in ME from what the lore says), and how come my companions have unlimited ammo and I have to swap out my favorite weapon just because a fight took too long, or I'm a bad shot?
also, if I use the best weapon, I'm sure as hell going to take all the ammo I need to only use that weapon, getting rid of all the other garbage that I don't want to use.
these limitations might have served a purpose but it doesn't mean they should be perpetuated.
I personally haven't used the sniper rifle on my infiltrator build because I knew I'd run out of ammo really quick and I didn't want to bother changing weapons<_<

just because you're specialized in something, such as sniping, doesnt mean it should be available and viable 100% of the time. it does give you an advantage. you can kill priority targets from a very long range. thats not a bad thing at all, thats great actually. now should to be able to snipe everyone all the time? nah, that'd be almost gamebreaking.

why are people so against using multiple weapons? i constantly switch weapons, use them all. you're just limiting yourself if you ONLY snipe. or ONLY shotgun. ect.

remember this is A VIDEO GAME. your squadmates have unlimited ammo because they're squadmates, if they ran out of ammo they'd be useless. its implied maybe they collect ammo too. i dunno who cares? thats EXTREMELY nitpicky. i cant even think of a game where a friendly AI controled person runs out of ammo aside from maybe scripted events.

also, any person with military training will tell you, you want a backup weapon. you dont want to completely devote yourself to one gun. what if it breaks? what if it jams? what if you drop it running from an explosion? ect. you want a sidearm and you want some ammo for that sidearm. shepard is a military mastermind, of course he's going to carry a few weapons with ammo for each. keeps him versatile and ready for many situations.

you shouldnt be allowed to always be using your classes strengths, there should be situations where you're fighting in situations where your class isnt ideal. it helps build realism and immersion.

how anyone can argue against this is mind boggling. do you really want a boring tedious game where all you do is use your classes strength over and over and over. why no desire to be forced into challenging situations?

[Phaedon]

iakus wrote...
Because the codex says they're not the same.  They aren't even referred to the same way.  It's like saying a steel canteen and a dixie cup are the same because they are both used for drinking water.

Errr, that's because the word 'clip' implies that the device is flexible.

In fact, do you want to know what the codex says?

To eliminate this inefficiency, the geth adopted detachable heat sinks known as thermal clips. While organic arms manufacturers were initially doubtful this would produce a net gain, a well-trained soldier can eject and swap thermal clips in under a second. Faced with superior enemy firepower, organic armies soon followed the geth's lead, and today's battlefields are littered with these thermal clips.

It is.


Literally.


The same.


Thing.

Modifié par Phaedon, 25 mai 2011 - 06:26 .

[Phaedon]

Wizz wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Not to mention that it doesn't go against the lore, after all.

Jacobs's loyalty mission, geth using thermal clipses, collectors using thermal clipses, quarians using thermal clipses...

I have already answered to all of these.

Read the previous posts before replying.


Anyway...
1) Heat sinks = Thermal Clips. You should probably be worried if there weren't any on the Hugo Gernsback.
2) The geth use thermal clips. That's what the codex says. Just because you couldn't pick them up, or they didn't appear in ME1, that means nothing at all. 
3) The Collectors use Reaper Technolodgy. And so do the geth. It is only logical to assume that the thermal clips have potential Reaper origins. 
4) If Quarian marines did not use the much more efficient system of thermal clips (which doesn't even require changing your weapon), then who would? Logically, they would have to refill their stocks with new heatsinks after some time anyway, why not buy thermal clips instead?

Modifié par Phaedon, 25 mai 2011 - 06:32 .

[Bozorgmehr]

tonnactus wrote...

So Dragon Age Origins is a combination of an rpg and hack and slash...
Some people here should look at least at wikipedia definitions of game genres. It couldnt be so hard.

The Wikipedia or the Tonnactipedia?

Seriously, you sound like a member of the KKK-gaming-division - trying to stop anyone from contaminating 'RPGs'.

Modifié par Bozorgmehr, 25 mai 2011 - 07:16 .

[Ahriman]

Phaedon wrote...
Anyway...
1) Heat sinks = Thermal Clips.

No.

2) The geth use thermal clips. That's what the codex says. Just because you couldn't pick them up, or they didn't appear in ME1, that means nothing at all.

Codex? Where exactly Codex says that?

3) The Collectors use Reaper Technolodgy. And so do the geth. It is only logical to assume that the thermal clips have potential Reaper origins.

Are you trying to tell that Reapers use Citadel Space thermal clips standarts for their weapon? And geth weapon is not Reaper technology. (Dragon Teeth and Virus are)

4) If Quarian marines did not use the much more efficient system of thermal clips (which doesn't even require changing your weapon), then who would? Logically, they would have to refill their stocks with new heatsinks after some time anyway, why not buy thermal clips instead?

First, it's more effective but not "much more".
Second, even marines don't have modern weapon. Nobody simply sell it to them.
Third, heatsink is a radiator. It's not changed every time weapon is overheated.

[MarchWaltz]

Not sure if this was mentioned (not reading 15 pages) but I dont care for the clip system, I just want the UI to reflect how it works; IE, you have a bar that builds up, then when the bar is at max you pop the heat sink.

[DDG4005]

I'm glad that BioWare is sticking wit thermal clips for ME3. There were usually more than enough of them lying around during a fire-fight anyway.

[Murmillos]

Clonedzero wrote...
why are people so against using multiple weapons? i constantly switch weapons, use them all. you're just limiting yourself if you ONLY snipe. or ONLY shotgun. ect.

And why should one way be forced upon the player over the other.

What would you say if the game allowed use of only one weapon? Would you continue to try to argue your point that multiple weapons are better if some smart ass told you to shut up because thats just the way is?