Kalfear wrote...
But you and yours havent done that.
I havent seen one concern be LOGICALLY dispelled because no one has played the game yet so neither side knows the answer.
But ill even go a step father, I tried last night to have a mature conversation with 3 of your more vocal posters. I maturly laid out the arguement that the ME2 soldier was basically Master Cheif and just as linear siting quotes made by Bioware on forced weapon usage, no difference between yours and my soldier builds, and a rather linear track to follow.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to lump everyone who disagrees with you into one category. I think a lot of the arguments that have been made that are for the ammo change have actually been pretty weak. It's frustrating because people focus on arguing with those people because it's easier.
I'm sorry that none of my arguments have been satisfactory to you, but I've tried to be as civil and logical and possible, and I hope that we can come to some sort of agreement at some point without resorting to insulting each other if possible.
The 3 answers I got from the shooter crowd?
1) Ur a Trollz
2) I can make a Vanguard that doesnt use biotics and weapons and ill die to (his answer to me wanting a soldier that only uses assult rifles and no other weapon (which I might add I did in ME1 with no problem) so Bioiware restricting my design of my Vanguard character by your (mine) logic. was his answer. WOW, way to logically dispell my concerns.
3) Your a kid (this coming from a poster that admits hes under 18 and shouldnt be playing the game to begin with)
So excuse me for not seeing this so called quality in the pro shooter crowd replies.
I can't speak for any of the other answers that you got, but I do think there was something to mine. (The vanguard analogy.) There are plenty of other ways that a person can artificially reduce their effectiveness within a game system for their preferences. It's actually a fairly common method of metagaming. There were a lot of people who would build melee sorceresses in diablo II for example. They had a much more difficult time of it because of the way they were playing, but they were proud of themselves when they got good at it and became successful.
When you play a class like a soldier and then ignore one of the main features of how that class is supposed to play, the game will be harder for you, just like a vanguard who ignores his biotics or an adept that forgets they have guns, or an infiltrator who resolves to use the sniper rifle as much as possible but never scope.
Now why would developers set up a game where you had the ability to gimp yourself? Because players, given the choice between a really boring way to play and a really exiting and fun way to play, will simply choose the more effective one out of the two almost every time.
It's the developer's job to make sure that the simplest and most boring ways to play are slightly discouraged through mechanics somehow. That way, the people who would have just played it the lazy way put some more effort into it and find the whole experience more rewarding and want to play it more, and the people who wanted to play it the fun way don't get penalized for it.
And a third group of metagamers can decide to play the discouraged way just because they can, and fight through whatever method was set up to discourage that mode of play. (People who want to play a certain way due to roleplay reasons also fall into this group. They grin and bear it and feel tougher because they didn't sacrifice their beliefs or whatever and still saved the galaxy.)
At least that's how I see it.
Your posts arnt as insulting but they contain no logical answers to the posted concerns because you dont have the answers as you havent played game yet!
It's true I haven't played the game yet, but I've read a lot of developer commentary for a lot of different games. I think that I can form some educated guesses about things based on the massive flow of combat videos that have been coming in recently. I mean, I understand that there's the potential that I'm completely wrong about everything, but I don't think it's much of a coincidence that almost every expalanation a dev gives for something they did matches what I've been saying about it.
Christina said herself during the stream today that the main reason they added the ammo system was to discourage boring play, and that fits with everything I've said in this topic.
Oh sorry, forgot to mention the 4th (seperate but just as entertaining) pro shooter poster that got a obscure poll with loaded pro shooter questions as his proff shooters better then RPGs. Even with his loading the questions and calling all his freinds to vote and hiding poll so no one else see it, best he could get is 56% by adding 2 of the 3 catagories as his side. GREAT QUALITY there, way to logically dispell peoples concerns.
I take it my point been made?
I guess? I've seen some pretty dumb arguments on every side of every issue since I've been posting on this forum. I don't think it means much besides the fact that being on the internet melts people's brains sometimes.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
