791 réponses à ce sujet

[wizardryforever]

I fail to see what the big deal is with the thermal clips.  People act like they are this horrible idea and the worst thing to ever happen to Mass Effect.  There seem to be a few major reasons for this.  People are upset because it is inconsistent with the lore, because it makes less tactical sense from a real-world perspective, and (for some reason) because they are called "thermal clips" instead of "ammo."

For the first thing, thermal clips themselves aren't really inconsistent with the lore.  Bioware explained it, and while that explanation is a bit shaky, it works.  Maybe everybody in the Mass Effect universe agrees that clips are better.  Implausible, but not impossible.  As far as retcons go, it could be much worse.  No major part of the story was changed by this, no character(s) derailed, no settings changed.  All it did was justify an arguably superior gameplay mechanic.  I'm fine with that.

For the second thing, this is one of those "willing suspension of disbelief," and "acceptable breaks from reality" situations.  There are many things in the game that make no sense when applied to the real world, and really, thermal clips are not that bad considering certain other games.

For the last (and stupidest) thing, why is it such a frelling big deal that Bioware chose to call them "thermal clips?"  If we know, Bioware knows, and everybody who plays the game for 5 minutes knows that they're ammo, why does it matter?  This is one of the nitpickiest reasons to not like thermal clips I've ever heard.

I'm glad they are keeping the system in ME3, as there was really nothing wrong with it in ME2.

[Mr. MannlyMan]

Notanything wrote...

Once again, lore reasons for thermal
clips are stupid. If there was a war between a side with thermal clips
and weapons that can overheat, the thermal clip using side would be at a
disadvantage, because after enough time, they would run out thermal
clips unless they were close to some sort of armory. The users of the
old weaponry could simply maintain fire to avoid overheating, and since
the weapons they have actually COOL DOWN unlike newer thermal clip using
weapons, they are not bound by an ammunition count. Unless of course
the block inside the gun runs out.

Pretty much this.

I
would've much preferred it if they'd had a hybrid of cooldowns and
thermal clips: halve the damage of weapons when shooting without the
clips, give them full damage when a clip is inserted. That way, weapons
lose their effectiveness because taking enemies down would take twice
the amount of time it would when using thermal clips; plus the cooldown
rate would be bypassed.

Inserting a thermal clip should be like
activating Marksman with the pistol in ME1: massive boosts to damage,
firing rate, and ignoring the cooldown for a sustained maximum rate of
fire. Make thermal clips more tactical; gives us a reason to stockpile
them, and save them for the big fights. That gives us a higher reward
than making us rely on them just to have the privilege of shooting our
guns.

Giving us a straight-up ammo system? Boring.
The only reason "it works" in other games is because their guns are
shooting bullets, so it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to the player
if they had a cooldown; Bioware has a golden opportunity to put a
unique twist on ammo in the game, and it doesn't seem like they care
about anything other than emulating standard shooter fare (even though,
y'know, Mass Effect 2's shooter gameplay would never be able to stand on
its own if it weren't for the skilltree and the weapons loadout).

Sorry, Phaedon; I just think sticking with the current ammo system is lame and unimaginative. Especially when there's really no reward to scrounging ammo clips after a battle, other than to make sure you have enough to keep using your favourite gun. Sorry if I come off as an ass, but the ammo system is and has been a sore point for me; especially on Insanity, the ammo management becomes quite tedious when you're looking around apartments and hallways for spare clips.

P.S. Players are STILL going to be focused on ammo management during combat, because they won't be thinking about their rate of fire or their damage when they're trying to watch their ammo reserve. Those are things you'll be figuring out while at a workbench.

[Gatt9]

wizardryforever wrote...

I fail to see what the big deal is with the thermal clips.  People act like they are this horrible idea and the worst thing to ever happen to Mass Effect.  There seem to be a few major reasons for this.  People are upset because it is inconsistent with the lore, because it makes less tactical sense from a real-world perspective, and (for some reason) because they are called "thermal clips" instead of "ammo."

The problem is this:

Thermal clips were implemented in ME2 for no reason other than because "Shooters have ammo".  The point to Ammo is to increase tension by making the player conciously choose which weapons to use and when through a system or limited resources,  and in a well done Shooter will even put the player in a "Every shot counts" scenario.  Most especially in any setting where ready access to ammo dumps is an issue due to conflict (Read every shooter ever).  It keeps the player engaged,  and actively assessing his/her current situation versus the anticipated.

ME2 pretty much misses this whole point,  it implements Ammo in a very generic way,  making it unnecessary to make weapon choices,  it feeds you ammo constantly so you don't have to worry about limited resources,  and you never have a situation where ammo is a problem.

As such,  the system must've been implemented for some other reason,  and there's only one option "Shooter have ammo so put ammo in ME2 to get shooter players to buy it".  It's never used for any purpose at all,  and is so prevelant as to be almost the same as the heat based one in ME,  just forcing the player to run around in circles for no real reason after each firefight.

Implementing ammo is just fine,  but if you're going to do it,  do it for the right reasons.  Because you intend to use the system to heighten the Player's engagement.

[Anihilus]

I thought thermal clips were invented to regulate cooling and prevent overheating...

[Yew Suck]

I wasn't a huge fan of how clips were introduced but since the final game is a little more than around the corner, isn't it time to just deal with it already? Peeps are still writing novella's on this subject.

Yeah they weren't delicately woven in with the lore and some of the accuracy challenged players have to look for ammo after a fight, but so what? Clips were hardly deal breakers.

[Gatt9]

Anihilus wrote...

I thought thermal clips were invented to regulate cooling and prevent overheating...

That's the claim,  but it actually doesn't make any sense.

They claim the weapons are more powerful,  and thus require cooling.  Except when I shoot a Geth in ME2,  takes pretty much the same number of shots it took in ME with the previous weapon,  so apparently this whole increase in damage is only on paper.

Which makes you wonder how monumentally idiotically beurocratic all of the races are if they're using these weapons because someone claimed they were stronger,  there's no field use evidence this is true,  and the expense increase must be staggering.

Almost makes you want to know if the people in charge of the Race's militaries are at all related to PT Barnum,  because someone's making a metric ton of loot selling snake oil.

[Dave666]

Gatt9 wrote...

Anihilus wrote...

I thought thermal clips were invented to regulate cooling and prevent overheating...

That's the claim,  but it actually doesn't make any sense.

They claim the weapons are more powerful,  and thus require cooling.  Except when I shoot a Geth in ME2,  takes pretty much the same number of shots it took in ME with the previous weapon,  so apparently this whole increase in damage is only on paper.

Which makes you wonder how monumentally idiotically beurocratic all of the races are if they're using these weapons because someone claimed they were stronger,  there's no field use evidence this is true,  and the expense increase must be staggering.

Almost makes you want to know if the people in charge of the Race's militaries are at all related to PT Barnum,  because someone's making a metric ton of loot selling snake oil.

Indeed.  I often see people on BSN justifying Thermal Clips by claiming that weapons in ME:2 were somehow more powerful than in ME:1.  This is complete bull****.  In ME:1 everyone, Shepard the squad and enemies had waaay more health and shields than in ME:2.  Hell at max level Barrier added 1,000 points to Shepards (or a squadmates) shield total.  Everyone had more health and shields.

If you could somehow mod ME:2 weapons into ME:1 you'd run completely out of ammo after you took out three or four enemies.  In that same time ME:1 weapons would have killed twice as many enemies and still be firing while the ME:2 weapon users would be scavenging for ammo.

[Tony Gunslinger]

[quote]Gatt9 wrote...

The problem is this:

Thermal clips were implemented in ME2 for no reason other than because "Shooters have ammo".  [/quote]


BW went through rounds of planning, discussions, and testing different options, and in the end concluded that ammo clip is the best option. It's very presumptuous of you to think that when people make a decision that you don't like or understand, they must be morons.


[quote]
The point to Ammo is to increase tension by making the player conciously choose which weapons to use and when through a system or limited resources,  and in a well done Shooter will even put the player in a "Every shot counts" scenario.  Most especially in any setting where ready access to ammo dumps is an issue due to conflict (Read every shooter ever).  It keeps the player engaged,  and actively assessing his/her current situation versus the anticipated.

ME2 pretty much misses this whole point,  it implements Ammo in a very generic way,  making it unnecessary to make weapon choices,  it feeds you ammo constantly so you don't have to worry about limited resources,  and you never have a situation where ammo is a problem.

As such,  the system must've been implemented for some other reason,  and there's only one option "Shooter have ammo so put ammo in ME2 to get shooter players to buy it".  It's never used for any purpose at all,  and is so prevelant as to be almost the same as the heat based one in ME,  just forcing the player to run around in circles for no real reason after each firefight.

Implementing ammo is just fine,  but if you're going to do it,  do it for the right reasons.  Because you intend to use the system to heighten the Player's engagement.[/quote]
[/quote]

1. ME2 made power cooldowns a lot shorter and global so you can use them tactcally. If you  add in ME1's weapon cooldown, both cooldowns would potentially compete with your attention. Would you really want to constantly look at two constantly changing progress bars at the side of your screen? Would it not be a more fluid game to have one mechanic in which timing is dynamic (powers) and combine with another mechanic the timing is constant (guns with fixed shot limit and reload time)?

2. The "ammo isn't an issue in ME2 because they're everwhere so why bother" argument doesn't hold up because just the mere thought that you have limited supply makes you move your butt. If you don't believe me, boot up ME2 and use the only weapon that has unlimited ammo: the Hammerhead. Tell me that you're aggressively dodging enemy fire with the Hammerhead and move in for the awesome kill. Most likely, camping as far away as possible and holding the trigger. Doesn't that sound familiar?

But if the Hammerhead only have 50 missiles, it has distance damage modifier (the closer you are the more damage you deal), and the maps were redesigned to have frontal assault and flanking routes, then you may be encouraged to pay more attention to your options.

3. What is it about picking up ammo that bothers you so much? You pick up loot and health potions in other games, even more so than ammo clips. Why is the unlimited ammo/cooldown system so awesome that beats the ammo system? And why do you say that it caters to the shooter crowd and ME2 is less "RPG" because it? Don't you have to buy arrows for your bow, repair your sword and axe, and have limited health and mana potions?

[Sgt Stryker]

@Dave666:

Unfortunately that argument doesn't work, because you're comparing arbitrary units used by two different game engines. Exactly how big is an ME1 "point" compared to an ME2 "point"? We simply do not know.

Until we get actual numbers for the power of ME weapons (preferably with a real, physical unit of energy!), we cannot make the call that ME2 weapons are more powerful than ME1 weapons, or vice versa. Furthermore, common sense would dictate that between 2183 and 2185, weapons technology would experience at least some progress, rather than the opposite.

[Inquisitor Recon]

I've always been interested in that hybrid ammo system they toyed around with in ME2, but I would rather not go back to the ME1 overheating. Sticking with what we had in ME2 works for me.

[My Liege]

There's a simple answer for why I despise these Thermal Clips: I hate and utterly despise searching rooms for ammunition. It's the same as scanning planets. It's time consuming and pointless.

No amount of play-testing will change the frustration of hunting for clips.

I'm all for the idea of a hybrid system and designed one myself that created a new upgrade tree. In an RPG, the more upgrades you can purchase or find, the better.

Any time you can turn a drawback into a positive results in a win.

[Dave666]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

@Dave666:

Unfortunately that argument doesn't work, because you're comparing arbitrary units used by two different game engines. Exactly how big is an ME1 "point" compared to an ME2 "point"? We simply do not know.

Until we get actual numbers for the power of ME weapons (preferably with a real, physical unit of energy!), we cannot make the call that ME2 weapons are more powerful than ME1 weapons, or vice versa. Furthermore, common sense would dictate that between 2183 and 2185, weapons technology would experience at least some progress, rather than the opposite.

Agreed, we don't know the numbers, but which RPG maker in their right mind makes games where the top tier guns do 2 points of damage and the enemies have 20 health?  If Shepard has over 1,000 health then you can bet your bottom dollar that some enemies do also, thats just the way that game makers think.  They're never going to make a game where the protagonist at top level has a hundred times more health than every single enemy and we both know it.  So if it takes three shots with a HMWSR (Spectre X level Sniper Rifle) to kill an enemy then lets face it an ME:2 weapon would be left crying and out of 'ammo'.

[EMailakaSrFox]

I dont mind the thermo clips, but in reality they are ammo, I wish they had actually implemented some sort of actual heat damping, as it all just seemed slapped on and not actually giving tge ullysion of being useful.

[Kakistos_]

Gatt9 wrote...

Anihilus wrote...

I thought thermal clips were invented to regulate cooling and prevent overheating...

That's the claim,  but it actually doesn't make any sense.

They claim the weapons are more powerful,  and thus require cooling.  Except when I shoot a Geth in ME2,  takes pretty much the same number of shots it took in ME with the previous weapon,  so apparently this whole increase in damage is only on paper.

Which makes you wonder how monumentally idiotically beurocratic all of the races are if they're using these weapons because someone claimed they were stronger,  there's no field use evidence this is true,  and the expense increase must be staggering.

Almost makes you want to know if the people in charge of the Race's militaries are at all related to PT Barnum,  because someone's making a metric ton of loot selling snake oil.

This is my only complaint about Thermal Clips, other than the fact that they were clearly favored over powers. Ammo and guns in ME1 were so elequently put together in lore and in function. ME2 ammo explanation and lore is just well, obviously last minute. I would be more forgiving if the massive shift in arms throughout the galaxy had been thought out a bit more.

[CroGamer002]

Devos wrote...


The ammo system used by games, good or bad doesn't just come down to limited ammo, pick up clips to refill it. How much ammo can you hold? How much ammo per-magazine? How much ammo do you pick up at a time? What can you do when you are getting low? All of these factors are part of the implementation of the system.


ME2's problem is that compared to your total your ammo could fluctuate a lot so you constantly needed to refill it by hunting around for clips between fights. There was a slim chance you could be unlucky and run out and it really did come down to luck. The only time you are going to have a consistent problem with ammo is if you want to use a weapon which has low ammo capacities such as Shotgun before the upgrade and Sniper Rifles.

Kinda like in most shooters.

The pay off to this busy work. Absolutely Nothing. There is no strategic or tactical choices the ammo system has you make. Your gun already decided based on effectiveness against defence, utility and ability synergy (charge and shotgun, tactical cloak and sniper). On top of that the two categories of gun you are punished most by the ammo system for trying to use consistently each have a class more or less dedicated to using them. Was it ever really going to add to the fun by denying the player the play style they opted for?

1st many people play Infiltrator with shotgun and Vanguard with Assault Rifle and they kick ass with it.
2nd how's a bad thing for game to make player use other guns in his/hers disposal? Variety people.

So yes, ME2's ammo system is bad and if you look carefully at what "95%" of shooters do they handle it better. They are better because they use ammo availability to force choices, change how you play or simply don't generate busy work by giving you regular refills. But I'm not too worried about the announcement: I think it's probably easier to fix the problems with  ME2's ammo system than ME1's and I hope Bioware got the message. But lets not pretend there wasn't problems with ME2's system.

I can beat Call of Duty using same weapon in specific mission and most of the time it's same weapon( MP40, AK47 or weapon I have from start since I have sh*t load of ammo on it).

Unless you're talking about multiplayer, since that's a whole different story.

Also I don't find a game to be terrible just because it's ammo system is terrible. For example I find ME2's ammo system is terrible but I still believe it is quite simply one of the greatest games there is. That makes it all the more frustrating it gets wrong something so many other, lesser games got right.

And yet you still fail to explain why is even remotely bad.

Modifié par Mesina2, 22 mai 2011 - 06:00 .

[Gatt9]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

The problem is this:

Thermal clips were implemented in ME2 for no reason other than because "Shooters have ammo". 

BW went through rounds of planning, discussions, and testing different options, and in the end concluded that ammo clip is the best option. It's very presumptuous of you to think that when people make a decision that you don't like or understand, they must be morons.

1.  I'm having a hard time finding the spot where I called them morons,  could you please do me a favor and bold the word for me in my post?  When you can't find it,  do me another favor,  and try dealing with what it was I said rather than strawmaning.

2.  I understand quite well,  the ammo system serves absolutely no function.  It is in such incredibly plentiful supply that it's never a concern,  so why is it even there?  Since there's obviously no gameplay reason for it,  then there must be an external reason.  Since Christina Norman spends most of her interviews talking about Shooter mechanics,  it can only be because "Shooters have ammo".  If you've got some other viable option,  by all means,  post it.

The point to Ammo is to increase tension by making the player conciously choose which weapons to use and when through a system or limited resources,  and in a well done Shooter will even put the player in a "Every shot counts" scenario.  Most especially in any setting where ready access to ammo dumps is an issue due to conflict (Read every shooter ever).  It keeps the player engaged,  and actively assessing his/her current situation versus the anticipated.

ME2 pretty much misses this whole point,  it implements Ammo in a very generic way,  making it unnecessary to make weapon choices,  it feeds you ammo constantly so you don't have to worry about limited resources,  and you never have a situation where ammo is a problem.

As such,  the system must've been implemented for some other reason,  and there's only one option "Shooter have ammo so put ammo in ME2 to get shooter players to buy it".  It's never used for any purpose at all,  and is so prevelant as to be almost the same as the heat based one in ME,  just forcing the player to run around in circles for no real reason after each firefight.

Implementing ammo is just fine,  but if you're going to do it,  do it for the right reasons.  Because you intend to use the system to heighten the Player's engagement.

1. ME2 made power cooldowns a lot shorter and global so you can use them tactcally. If you  add in ME1's weapon cooldown, both cooldowns would potentially compete with your attention. Would you really want to constantly look at two constantly changing progress bars at the side of your screen? Would it not be a more fluid game to have one mechanic in which timing is dynamic (powers) and combine with another mechanic the timing is constant (guns with fixed shot limit and reload time)?

First,  there's no "Tactics" in ME2.  The AI is something from the 90's.  It doesn't try to flank,  doesn't try to flush you out,  doesn't try to pin you down.  It shoots for X seconds,  then idles behind cover for X seconds.  Just watch the timing of all your enemies while you comfortably sit behind cover,  and when they all pause poke your head up and wait for their idle to expire,  then shoot.  Rinse.  Repeat.  In fact,  the AI is so predictable and primitive that all it does as far as movement is move between point A and point B in a easy to identify pattern.  If the AI gets shot once from a "Stand up" position,  it's next move will be "Lean out",  and it'll cycle through that repeatedly.  Tactics are completely unnecessary when you can predict exactly how the AI will behave.

Second,  I didn't say that one system or the other was better. 

Third,  as a Soldier,  the only time I used powers was to either lock in my Disrupter ammo for the level (Which I never changed for the whole game because there's absolutely no reason to),  or occasionally use the Geth Shield because I didn't feel like playing the Gopher Game with the AI.  So the whole cooldown thing was pretty much lost on me,  unlike in ME,  I never needed or used it.

2. The "ammo isn't an issue in ME2 because they're everwhere so why bother" argument doesn't hold up because just the mere thought that you have limited supply makes you move your butt. If you don't believe me, boot up ME2 and use the only weapon that has unlimited ammo: the Hammerhead. Tell me that you're aggressively dodging enemy fire with the Hammerhead and move in for the awesome kill. Most likely, camping as far away as possible and holding the trigger. Doesn't that sound familiar?

But if the Hammerhead only have 50 missiles, it has distance damage modifier (the closer you are the more damage you deal), and the maps were redesigned to have frontal assault and flanking routes, then you may be encouraged to pay more attention to your options.

It doesn't make me move my butt,  there's no need.  As above,  the AI's so incredibly predictable that ammo's never an issue.  If I'm never running low on ammo,  then there's never any reason for me to stress about ammo.  In fact,  the only time I ever felt like ammo might be a problem was the Thresher Maw,  and convienently,  ammo respawns on that level in predefined places so you never have a limited supply.

The Hammerhead is a loaded question.  The thing falls apart if someone so much as throws an egg at it.  Sure I'll hang back,  because I really don't feel like doing the whole level because the assault vehicle takes less damage to kill than I do on my own.

But I did spend alot of time hanging back and using the Sniper Rifle.  Mainly because the AI was so predictable that all I had to do was wait for the idle pause,  hold my dot an inch and a half above where they were crouching,  and get a headshot everytime when they popped up when the idle pause expired.

Oh,  I actually did run out of ammo once,  in the side mission with the mine and the husks,  I ran out of ammo for exactly one gun.

3. What is it about picking up ammo that bothers you so much? You pick up loot and health potions in other games, even more so than ammo clips. Why is the unlimited ammo/cooldown system so awesome that beats the ammo system? And why do you say that it caters to the shooter crowd and ME2 is less "RPG" because it? Don't you have to buy arrows for your bow, repair your sword and axe, and have limited health and mana potions?

There you go putting words in my mouth again.  If you reread my post,  you'll discover that I didn't actually say the ammo bothered me.  I just pointed out that it was put in for a completely superflous reason and that it served no purpose in the game.

You'll also find that I didn't say it made it "Less RPG" because of it.  Because,  TBH,  one of the greatest RPGs ever made,  Fallout,  made extensive use of the system.

So with all due respect,  I'd appriciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth.  I really don't understand what it is with this forum that if you critisize ME2 at all people immediately make 1000 assumptions and start putting words in your mouth.  ME2 had flaws,  people seriously need to realize that instead of defending it as if it were the pinnacle of entertainment.

Modifié par Gatt9, 22 mai 2011 - 06:28 .

[Halo Quea]

Gatt9 wrote...

Anihilus wrote...

I thought thermal clips were invented to regulate cooling and prevent overheating...

That's the claim,  but it actually doesn't make any sense.

Of course it doesn't make sense. It's just Bioware saying  "ME TOO" to the shooter crowd.

It makes even less sense when you factor who is actually in possession of thermal clips. 

Mech Dogs-  They don't fire any weapons, they just run up to you and.......well I'm not sure what it is that they do, but they drop thermal clips like dog biscuits when you kill them.  Why?

Husks-  Yep, the dumbest and most uninteresting enemies we face certainly don't fire any weapons at us, yet they drop thermal clips all the time.  How generous of them.

The Collectors-  Ok, what do these guys need clips for?  They're more advanced, have access to Reaper tech and fire particle beams at us.  Did they suddenly become envious of  Geth technology? 

Pyros-  Alright, these guys are shooting flames at us from a GAS tank.  I doubt you'd need clips to cool down a flame thrower.  <_<

Agents of the Liar!!!! -     Okay I would bring up the crew of the Hugo Gernsback, but what would be the point?  We've all heard it before.  Besides, those guys SHOULDN'T have been able to shoot at us, much less drop thermal clips.  Those poor people were in need of mercy like the folks on Feros.  We should have had a similar  option to save them, not gun them down.

So we've got all these damn thermal clips all over the place and no explaination as to why everyone in the galaxy adopted them at the same time. 

[EMailakaSrFox]

Because Bioware wanted a more shooter shooter rpg than an rpg rpg shooter.

[CroGamer002]

Halo Quea wrote...

That's the claim,  but it actually doesn't make any sense.

Of course it doesn't make sense. It's just Bioware saying  "ME TOO" to the shooter crowd.

Heh?

It makes even less sense when you factor who is actually in possession of thermal clips. 

Mech Dogs-  They don't fire any weapons, they just run up to you and.......well I'm not sure what it is that they do, but they drop thermal clips like dog biscuits when you kill them.  Why?

Husks-  Yep, the dumbest and most uninteresting enemies we face certainly don't fire any weapons at us, yet they drop thermal clips all the time.  How generous of them.


Pyros-  Alright, these guys are shooting flames at us from a GAS tank.  I doubt you'd need clips to cool down a flame thrower.  <_<

They never dropped Thermal clips for me.

So you either lie, forget that there are other enenmies with them that could have dropped it instead or had a strange glitch.

The Collectors-  Ok, what do these guys need clips for?  They're more advanced, have access to Reaper tech and fire particle beams at us.  Did they suddenly become envious of  Geth technology? 

Geth might have got that tech from them maybe?
Or they though "hey, that's a nice tech they made, how didn't we though of that before?".

Agents of the Liar!!!! -  Okay I would bring up the crew of the Hugo Gernsback, but what would be the point?  We've all heard it before.  Besides, those guys SHOULDN'T have been able to shoot at us, much less drop thermal clips.  Those poor people were in need of mercy like the folks on Feros.  We should have had a similar  option to save them, not gun them down.

Bioware balls it up.

So we've got all these damn thermal clips all over the place and no explaination as to why everyone in the galaxy adopted them at the same time.

It's been 2 years and since Shepard knows about Thermal Clips few seconds he/she wakes up, Thermal clips might have start to be practiced few months between end of ME1 and prologue of ME2.

[Tony Gunslinger]

Gatt9 wrote...

1.  I'm having a hard time finding the spot where I called them morons,  could you please do me a favor and bold the word for me in my post?  When you can't find it,  do me another favor,  and try dealing with what it was I said rather than strawmaning.

This part: "Thermal clips were implemented in ME2 for no reason other than because "Shooters have ammo". "

If people who make games for a living make decisions based on this criteria, then they are morons.

2.  I understand quite well,  the ammo system serves absolutely no function.  It is in such incredibly plentiful supply that it's never a concern,  so why is it even there?  Since there's obviously no gameplay reason for it,  then there must be an external reason.  Since Christina Norman spends most of her interviews talking about Shooter mechanics,  it can only be because "Shooters have ammo".  If you've got some other viable option,  by all means,  post it.

I would have written: "I can't find a reason for it"

First,  there's no "Tactics" in ME2.  The AI is something from the 90's.  It doesn't try to flank,  doesn't try to flush you out,  doesn't try to pin you down.  It shoots for X seconds,  then idles behind cover for X seconds.  Just watch the timing of all your enemies while you comfortably sit behind cover,  and when they all pause poke your head up and wait for their idle to expire,  then shoot.  Rinse.  Repeat.  In fact,  the AI is so predictable and primitive that all it does as far as movement is move between point A and point B in a easy to identify pattern.  If the AI gets shot once from a "Stand up" position,  it's next move will be "Lean out",  and it'll cycle through that repeatedly.  Tactics are completely unnecessary when you can predict exactly how the AI will behave.

There are tactics in ME2. Almost every mission offer you multiple routes to attack the enenmy. You can flank, you can hang back and snipe, or you can go head straight depending on your class, your build, your preferences. Please go to the strategy section to read about them.

Second,  I didn't say that one system or the other was better. 

Third,  as a Soldier,  the only time I used powers was to either lock in my Disrupter ammo for the level (Which I never changed for the whole game because there's absolutely no reason to),  or occasionally use the Geth Shield because I didn't feel like playing the Gopher Game with the AI.  So the whole cooldown thing was pretty much lost on me,  unlike in ME,  I never needed or used it.

It doesn't make me move my butt,  there's no need.  As above,  the AI's so incredibly predictable that ammo's never an issue.  If I'm never running low on ammo,  then there's never any reason for me to stress about ammo.  In fact,  the only time I ever felt like ammo might be a problem was the Thresher Maw,  and convienently,  ammo respawns on that level in predefined places so you never have a limited supply.

The fact that you're using your playthrough with the Soldier as your example is very telling of your experience with this game. First of all, the Soldier class is incredibly overpowered compared to other classes, because it's designed to be accessible to anyone, so you're playing a class all about guns. The rest of the classes do not rely soley on guns. Secondly, the fact that you didn't need Incendiary/Cryo/Warp ammos means you've only played this game below hardcore, in which most enemies do not have protections, which means you've missed out on experiencing the full mechanics and tactics of this game. I fault BW for hiding their real game in order to appeal casual players on normal difficulty. I'm not going to explain tactics and game mechanics in detail because they're all covered in the strategies section.

Register your game, try an Engineer or Adept on Hardcore, and talk to people who have played them.

The Hammerhead is a loaded question.  The thing falls apart if someone so much as throws an egg at it.  Sure I'll hang back,  because I really don't feel like doing the whole level because the assault vehicle takes less damage to kill than I do on my own.

On insanity, your shields drop in a fraction of a second and the enemy is lighting quick and accurate. They flank, they move around a lot more, and adjust to your position. It's exactly the situation if ME2 combat had unlimited ammo on insanity in an open enviroment.

But I did spend alot of time hanging back and using the Sniper Rifle.  Mainly because the AI was so predictable that all I had to do was wait for the idle pause,  hold my dot an inch and a half above where they were crouching,  and get a headshot everytime when they popped up when the idle pause expired.

Oh,  I actually did run out of ammo once,  in the side mission with the mine and the husks,  I ran out of ammo for exactly one gun.

Use cryo ammo with your AR/shotgun agsinst husks.

There you go putting words in my mouth again.  If you reread my post,  you'll discover that I didn't actually say the ammo bothered me.  I just pointed out that it was put in for a completely superflous reason and that it served no purpose in the game.

You'll also find that I didn't say it made it "Less RPG" because of it.  Because,  TBH,  one of the greatest RPGs ever made,  Fallout,  made extensive use of the system.

So with all due respect,  I'd appriciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth.  I really don't understand what it is with this forum that if you critisize ME2 at all people immediately make 1000 assumptions and start putting words in your mouth. 

Oh come now. I actually read this board every one in a while, so I've read you stuff on other threads lately. Don't be coy.

ME2 had flaws,  people seriously need to realize that instead of defending it as if it were the pinnacle of entertainment.

See, there you go again. Really, talk about making 1000 assumptions. How does this help?

Modifié par Tony Gunslinger, 22 mai 2011 - 08:23 .

[Notanything]

Halo Quea wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Anihilus wrote...

I thought thermal clips were invented to regulate cooling and prevent overheating...

That's the claim,  but it actually doesn't make any sense.

Of course it doesn't make sense. It's just Bioware saying  "ME TOO" to the shooter crowd.

It makes even less sense when you factor who is actually in possession of thermal clips. 

Mech Dogs-  They don't fire any weapons, they just run up to you and.......well I'm not sure what it is that they do, but they drop thermal clips like dog biscuits when you kill them.  Why?

Husks-  Yep, the dumbest and most uninteresting enemies we face certainly don't fire any weapons at us, yet they drop thermal clips all the time.  How generous of them.

The Collectors-  Ok, what do these guys need clips for?  They're more advanced, have access to Reaper tech and fire particle beams at us.  Did they suddenly become envious of  Geth technology? 

Pyros-  Alright, these guys are shooting flames at us from a GAS tank.  I doubt you'd need clips to cool down a flame thrower.  <_<

Agents of the Liar!!!! -     Okay I would bring up the crew of the Hugo Gernsback, but what would be the point?  We've all heard it before.  Besides, those guys SHOULDN'T have been able to shoot at us, much less drop thermal clips.  Those poor people were in need of mercy like the folks on Feros.  We should have had a similar  option to save them, not gun them down.

So we've got all these damn thermal clips all over the place and no explaination as to why everyone in the galaxy adopted them at the same time. 

I cannot believe I never noticed that I was getting thermal clips from husks and those FENRIS mechs.  I never stopped and thought about how absurd it was.

[Bozorgmehr]

Notanything wrote...

I cannot believe I never noticed that I was getting thermal clips from husks and those FENRIS mechs.  I never stopped and thought about how absurd it was.

Husks and dogs don't drop clips - you never missed anything, it's the one who've posted this nonsense who wasn't fully awake when (s)he played ME2.

[Devos]

Mesina2 wrote...

Kinda like in most shooters.

*sigh* as I pointed out in the next paragraph the problem is there is no pay off on that busy work, most shooters there is. You are going to have to make a reasoned argument rather than an empty assertion. And no, most shooters don't have you constantly searching for ammo, unless there is some choice related to it. (swapping a preferred gun for one with a more plentiful supply for example)

1st many people play Infiltrator with shotgun and Vanguard with Assault Rifle and they kick ass with it.
2nd how's a bad thing for game to make player use other guns in his/hers disposal? Variety people.

Not the point. Those two classes offer particular style of game play which is unique and then ration it out. For example, charging all the time is fun, it's not game breaking powerful, it's not an easy "I win" button and a lot of the time the risk/reward balance is well off into risk as compared with sitting in cover. But it's fun. It's one of the unique things ME2 offers. So why is fun to force a weapon choice and a different play style the one the player chose. Soldier already does that play style. As a pure shooter a dozen games are much, much better, it's unique game play twists like charge that make ME2 such a great game. The ammo system gets in the way of that.

I can beat Call of Duty using same weapon in specific mission and most of the time it's same weapon( MP40, AK47 or weapon I have from start since I have sh*t load of ammo on it).

And that's why CoD handles ammo better. It's limited but you don't search  arround between fire fights picking it up. I posted a thread weeks ago  with a whole bunch of examples and cited CoD exactly for that. It didn't do anything interesting with the ammo system so it doesn't make it a big deal. ME2 doesn't do anything interesting with ammo but demands you run in circles between fights.

And yet you still fail to explain why is even remotely bad.

No you are just blindly white knighting. If you are just going to go with pure assertion like above then no argument will please you, it's also pretty ironic that you criticise me for not explaining. Reply if you like, if you have anything interesting to say this time I'll respond.

Modifié par Devos, 22 mai 2011 - 01:07 .

[Machazareel]

As far as mechanics of the clips not making sense in that these clips are universal yet still single weapons can be emptied goes...

I always assumed that when you picked up thermal clips, which were basically clusters of heatsinks, these heatsinks were immediately injected into your weaponry, and your ammo capacity was basically the heatsink capacity of the weapon.

I seem to recall that whenever you 'reload' your gun, all you do is eject a heatsink, you don't stick anything back in. Doesn't really look like Shepard has too many pockets or spare room on his suit, so I don't see where he'd be carrying all those extra clips.

You don't see Shepard physically inject the heatsinks from the clips when he picks them up because it would constantly interrupt the action.

Modifié par Machazareel, 22 mai 2011 - 01:11 .

[Neo Hex Omega]

95Headhunter wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

How exactly is it broken?

95% of the shooters right there have it, and in my 4 playthroughs I have only been completely out of ammo twice.

Maybe broken wasn't the right word to use.

Basically, these thermal clips are said to be compatible with any weapon, yes? This is so that you only have one thing to pick up, and it will replenish all of your weapons.

Fair enough, everything makes sense so far.

But then, it becomes possible to run out of 'ammunition' for one weapon, when you still have thermal clips in reserve for another. This doesn't make sense. Hence my question, 'are they universal, or not?' Currently, they're neither one thing nor the other.

If the clips truly are universal, then why is there not a single ammunition 'pool' from which you draw from how you like? If I'm an infiltrator, why can I not simply neglect the SMG and use the clips solely on my rifle and pistol?

That's because when you pick up a clip, all of your weapons become fully loaded with the new thermal clips. That is to say, once a weapon is loaded with a clip, it can't be unloaded, except by spending all of the sinks inside.

Also, weapons in ME2 still have the "shots before overheat" stat. One thermal clip will give you one Widow shot, or 50 Tempest shots, every time. So with that in mind, yes, it would be nice to take clips from another weapon to add them to your rifle, but it is not like a clip from your smg would give you 50 more shots, you would just get one.

Modifié par Neo Hex Omega, 22 mai 2011 - 02:22 .