3223 réponses à ce sujet

[sbvera13]

ME universe guns are kinda wonky to begin with (don't get me started on a physics conversation). That they chose to violate internal consistency and change the rules between 1 and 2 is probably what gets to people.

Personally, I have never minded ammo, but it was very poorly implemented. I imagine soldiers or Vanguards have no problem, but as a sniper it's pretty horrible. The game forces you to stand behind a box and kill everything at range, then forces you to run up and grab dropped ammo clips after 10 shots. Completely boneheaded IMO.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Violating the lore was a problem. However, what they added was a more fluid and familiar shooter UI.

Adding an extra step does not improve fluidity.  And what difference does familiarity make?

This is a rather uncharacteristic opinionated outburst from you. In ever aspect, ME2 tried to play more like a shooter than ME1 did. That's not better or worse, it's just a different type of game. One you don't like.

The interrupt system had nothing to do with being a shooter, and everything to do with removing player agency from what should have been roleplaying decisions.

Allow me to rephrase: "...made the game a worse RPG."

[Ace of Dawn]

Gatt9 wrote...

Which apparently they didn't learn anything from it,  'cause now we have Holographic weapons,  except Holograms by their nature aren't able to injur anything.  They're just light without significant mass.  It's like claiming the beam from a flashlight is now lethal.  Which is pretty amazing,  because I didn't think anyone could come up with anything more ridiculous than Bethseda's "Rock-it-launcher" and that teddy bear that doesn't work.  I guess I underestimated Bioware's new direction...

I honestly mark up the "hologram blade" as an oversimplification of what is going on. After all, Casey Hudson (I think? *Someone* said this) that it was "Essentially a hologram blade". It appears like that, for sure. But I am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt until it actually comes out.

[Someone With Mass]

sbvera13 wrote...
Personally, I have never minded ammo, but it was very poorly implemented. I imagine soldiers or Vanguards have no problem, but as a sniper it's pretty horrible. The game forces you to stand behind a box and kill everything at range, then forces you to run up and grab dropped ammo clips after 10 shots. Completely boneheaded IMO.

Eh, that's what a sniper does. Shoots people at range.

[Sylvius the Mad]

For those of you who think the heat sinks didn't violate lore, I ask this:

Why didn't your companions need them?

[Praetor Knight]

Gatt9 wrote...

*snip*

I reject your reality and substitute my own





But seriously though, are we starting to go in circles?

[the_one_54321]

Someone With Mass wrote...
Okay, if we're going to play the lame "I know more than you" game, count me out.

It's not a contest of knowing more than each other. You can't have a conversation about a subject if you don't know anything about that subject. Unless all you're doing is saying that you know nothing and want to be informed.

[Ace of Dawn]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

For those of you who think the heat sinks didn't violate lore, I ask this:

Why didn't your companions need them?

Because micromanaging ammo in any game is a needless chore.

[Someone With Mass]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

For those of you who think the heat sinks didn't violate lore, I ask this:

Why didn't your companions need them?

Well, if you want your companions to run completely out of ammo in the middle of a fight and be forced to only use their powers, go right ahead.

I don't. 

People are really confusing gameplay mechanics with the lore something fierce in here.
The deal with Jacob's loyalty mission and the thermal clips was completely because of the convenience with the gameplay. Nothing else.

[EternalPink]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

For those of you who think the heat sinks didn't violate lore, I ask this:

Why didn't your companions need them?

Game play - having to manage squaddies ammo as well as your own would suck

Game mechanic - They'd have to have created inventories for squad members and a interface to access it

And who says they don't? the amount of wandering around the squaddies seem to do when i'm killing stuff they'd have plenty of time to grab themselves, me and a small army some ammo and we could also look at how often squaddies actually shoot compared to the player character since i've never really noticed them firing enough to exhaust the amount of ammo i can carry myself

[Someone With Mass]

Ace of Dawn wrote...
Because micromanaging ammo in any game is a needless chore.

That too.

Not to mention that it adds nothing positive to the gameplay.

Besides, it's why they're doing 45% less damage with their weapons.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 08 juillet 2011 - 12:14 .

[the_one_54321]

Presumably, they could manage their own ammunition. You assign them weapons, they can pick up ammo.

[sbvera13]

Someone With Mass wrote...

sbvera13 wrote...
Personally, I have never minded ammo, but it was very poorly implemented. I imagine soldiers or Vanguards have no problem, but as a sniper it's pretty horrible. The game forces you to stand behind a box and kill everything at range, then forces you to run up and grab dropped ammo clips after 10 shots. Completely boneheaded IMO.

Eh, that's what a sniper does. Shoots people at range.

Yes, I believe I mentioned that.  The issue was the amount of ammo, forcing you to snipe with a pistol for half the fight, unless you play on low difficulties and can kill everything with one hit.  I had to use the Viper instead of the Widow simply because it would last for an entire fight.

[slimgrin]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Ace of Dawn wrote...
Because micromanaging ammo in any game is a needless chore.

That too.

Not to mention that it adds nothing positive to the gameplay.

Except forcing the player to think about which ammo is effective against which enemy. Like in ME2.

Modifié par slimgrin, 08 juillet 2011 - 12:15 .

[the_one_54321]

sbvera13 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

sbvera13 wrote...
Personally, I have never minded ammo, but it was very poorly implemented. I imagine soldiers or Vanguards have no problem, but as a sniper it's pretty horrible. The game forces you to stand behind a box and kill everything at range, then forces you to run up and grab dropped ammo clips after 10 shots. Completely boneheaded IMO.

Eh, that's what a sniper does. Shoots people at range.

Yes, I believe I mentioned that.  The issue was the amount of ammo, forcing you to snipe with a pistol for half the fight, unless you play on low difficulties and can kill everything with one hit.  I had to use the Viper instead of the Widow simply because it would last for an entire fight.

I didn't have any such trouble.

[EternalPink]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...
Okay, if we're going to play the lame "I know more than you" game, count me out.

It's not a contest of knowing more than each other. You can't have a conversation about a subject if you don't know anything about that subject. Unless all you're doing is saying that you know nothing and want to be informed.

I call bull on this one i'm afraid, trying to equate actual science with a sci fi game set 200 years in the future and then saying that you will only discuss that science with people that can prove they have there own knowledge of real world science is exactly the "I know more than you" game

We used gun powder, candles and horses 200 years ago, you've most likely seen yourself how mobile/cell phones have changed the world and yet you don't think the ability to move heat from one object to another will have improved in another 200 years in such a way that it would make today's science look like gun powder, candles and horses 

[sbvera13]

slimgrin wrote...

Except forcing the player to think about which ammo is effective against which enemy. Like in ME2.

Yes, it was definately a key aspect of gameplay.  if you didn't conserve resources and use the right one at the right time, you'd probably die.  Thats why you don't waste those precious AP rounds on mere Loki's.

oh wait.  There's only 1 kind of ammo. I forgot.

[Someone With Mass]

sbvera13 wrote...

Yes, I believe I mentioned that.  The issue was the amount of ammo, forcing you to snipe with a pistol for half the fight, unless you play on low difficulties and can kill everything with one hit.  I had to use the Viper instead of the Widow simply because it would last for an entire fight.

I just cloak, run out and grab some clips and runs back/to a nearby cover. Or I might pick up some when I'm moving to get a better shot at the enemies.

Clips are scattered quite frequently throughout the level too, and I really don't have a problem with using my backup weapons for a while.

[doloreg]

I'm fine with the statement. I would rather play a game with great character ineraction, good combat, impressive and interesting story and a wast amount of options, than a game where i have to kill the same damn enemy 200 times just to get a rare loot, so i have a +0.02% hit chance item.

To me RPGs are not abput loot or combat, but immersion. The need to feel like i'm there, i'm in command of my character. Or to put it simply, that i am Playing a Role in the Game.
On an unrelated note, i doubt that they should say "button pushing" in any context after da2.

[the_one_54321]

EternalPink wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...
Okay, if we're going to play the lame "I know more than you" game, count me out.

It's not a contest of knowing more than each other. You can't have a conversation about a subject if you don't know anything about that subject. Unless all you're doing is saying that you know nothing and want to be informed.

I call bull on this one i'm afraid, trying to equate actual science with a sci fi game set 200 years in the future and then saying that you will only discuss that science with people that can prove they have there own knowledge of real world science is exactly the "I know more than you" game

We used gun powder, candles and horses 200 years ago, you've most likely seen yourself how mobile/cell phones have changed the world and yet you don't think the ability to move heat from one object to another will have improved in another 200 years in such a way that it would make today's science look like gun powder, candles and horses 

Except that's not how they approached it. They quote Newton. They say the barrel gets hot. They say the heat needs to be dissipated. They tell you they do it with a solid metal heat sink "clip." If they wanted to go with technology so advanced that it appears like magic, they should have stuck with omni-gel.

[sbvera13]

Someone With Mass wrote...

I just cloak, run out and grab some clips and runs back/to a nearby cover. Or I might pick up some when I'm moving to get a better shot at the enemies.

That works, but it's not my style.  Even in shooter games I like to methodically secure an area and then advance, using my squad to set up a crossfire if the game in question uses a squad.  Unfortunately ME2 doesn't give you that kind of flexibility.  Even games that aren't designed for it support multiple playstyle... ME2 is so limiting that there's basically only one.  To my mind that makes it very much inferior, even to ME1 which was no great shooter itself.

[slimgrin]

sbvera13 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Except forcing the player to think about which ammo is effective against which enemy. Like in ME2.

Yes, it was definately a key aspect of gameplay.  if you didn't conserve resources and use the right one at the right time, you'd probably die.  Thats why you don't waste those precious AP rounds on mere Loki's.

oh wait.  There's only 1 kind of ammo. I forgot.

Did you even play the game? O_O

[Someone With Mass]

slimgrin wrote...

Except forcing the player to think about which ammo is effective against which enemy. Like in ME2.

And when you're low on it, you're screwed, much like how in the early days of shooters, when you had to rely on medkits to refil your health, and if you were low on health and had no medkits, you were totally screwed and had to pretty much restart the whole level or fight for quite a while to get past the easy drones just because they happen to land that fatal shot on you about fifteen times in a row.

Yeah, I think I can live without that.

[element eater]

in my opinion you just need to be given more of it maybe each class could get an ammo boost for there core gun ar for soldiers shotguns for vanguards etc i actualy like the idea as it would still allow for some differentiation between classes based on weaponry. I cant stand in shooters when im forced into using weapons i dont like just because of ammo constraints

i have to admit though i dont realy understand the whole thermal clip thing not realy sure what its meant to represent at first i thought it was simply a way to dicharge heat from weapons but then why would you have an ammo count surely you'd just have a temperature gauge which when it reached a certain temperature would eject the clip and be replaced with a cool one

on topic, funny while i dont realy have any dislike for te comment i cant help but think biowares definition of rpg has changed somewhat over recent years. Its also interesting that while some issues being labled rpg mechanics could just as easily be labled shooter mechanics customising your gun for example is pretty common these days but rarely do i see it being labled an rpg mechanic.

exploration is most interesting to me but its such a vague term it doesnt realy help as so many aspects of the game could be called exploration
 

Modifié par element eater, 08 juillet 2011 - 12:38 .

[sbvera13]

element eater wrote...

in my opinion you just need to be given more of it maybe each class could get an ammo boost for there core gun ar for soldiers shotguns for vanguards etc i actualy like the idea as it would still allow for some differentiation between classes based on weaponry 

I like this idea.