Veex wrote...
I'm in the complete opposite camp. Not only is spraying detrimental due to limited ammo in ME2, it also now has damage modifiers for shot placement. If you aren't working on "making shots count" and you're just spraying with an AR or SMG you're not taking advantage of the system.
Mass Effect was the epitome of a spray and pray, no aim required scenario with heat sinks and no bonuses to limb or head damage. Mass Effect 2's combat changes reflect those issues directly.
The locational damage in ME2 is good. And certainly one of the better things about ME2's combat.
However locational damage is not reliant on Thermal Clips. Locational damage could just as easily have been implemented with the Overheat System.
I am not advocating for the return of ME1 Combat. Many here seem to get confused when I suggest that specific elements return from ME1, that I'm actually asking for the whole game to come back. I'm not okay.
Only the Overheat System. Why? Because the addition of ammo only serves as a limitation and is otherwise a useless addition. A "cooldown" can be made to behave exactly the same as a "reload". Instead of using the appropriate weapon for encounters, you use the weapons with the most ammo capacity. Switching to a Sniper Rifle instead of an Assault Rifle rarely serves any purpose other then the conservation of ammo.
Some will argue that this good because it forces the player to change "styles". But that totally goes against the idea of choosing a class to begin with. I choose a Vanguard because I want to use Shotguns, not SMGs. I choose an Inflitrator because I wanted to use Sniper Rifles. If you want to use one weapon during an engagement that's what you should be able to do. And it shouldn't involve you getting needlessly shot to pick up more clips in some obscure location.
Seriously it's dumb. Say Shepard is facing an actual Sniper, but has run out of clips for his weapon of choice. The only Thermal Clips available are lying in the middle of battlefield. If Shepard runs out to pick them up they will most likely get sniped and killed. And is this exactly what people hated about ME1? That there gun would Overheat for 5 seconds and be useless and that they'd get killed?
Adding ammo may have been interesting if enemies actually used it themselves (but they don't). It's moronic that Shepard runs around the battlefield to pick up ammunition, but apparently no else is constrained that way. Do you really think the game would be broken or worse with essentially unlimited ammo, even though squadmates and enemies already work that way?
The challenge comes purely from the downtime mechanic, be it "reloading" or "cooldown". Is a Vanguard with the Claymore challenged due to the ammo capacity? No. It's entirely about the reload and whether they hit or miss in the first place. (ME2's downtimes are better, but adding ammo was not necessary for this.)
Think about it: In both ME1 and ME2 you have a Krogan charging at you. Let's say you're blindly firing off into the sky. In which game are you actually going to be better off by doing this? Niether. You'll either die or your squadmates might kill the Krogan for you. Only difference is in ME2 if you survive you must find clips after the Krogan is dead. It doesn't make the game any better. It just punishes making mistakes slightly, which typically get you killed anyways. And I hardly consider ammo scrounging a good way to enforce players make their shots count.
Modifié par Bluko, 21 juin 2011 - 02:44 .
Retour en haut
