Kalfear wrote...
keeheen wrote...
Well my own personal opion there were alot of things about the ME1 combat sys that didnt make sense the biggest one for me was how I had infinite ammo and once you got the high level weapons and skills you could shoot forvever with no overheating problems so yeah the sys was broke glad Bioware fixed it.
once again, shooter fans asking to be saved from themselves.
Did it occur to you at all that if you didnt want unlimited ammo with no over heating to redesign the gun in other ways?
I know for a fact you could design gun to overheat in one shot (hehe I tried, was fun)
Not our fault you all went for the same gun build to exploit the rules best you could. Thats ALL ON YOU!
So here's my take on the matter from what I know about psychology and game design. I'm by no means an expert on either so take what I say with a grain of salt, but I'm majoring in one and I read as much as I can about the other. I'm convinced they're very deeply connected though, since games are designed to be used by humans. However, when it comes down to it, christina norman said exactly what I've been trying to say this whole time. I'm paraphrasing but it went something like this:
"The ammo change was implimented to stop people from playing in a boring and strange way." (She said that during the xfire stream on the 22nd, where she was a vanguard. I can find a link if you want.) I take this as encouragement that at least I'm partly on the right track here.
It's human nature to want to do things in the most effective and simple way they can. If they can have both then they will do both. It's bad game design to make the same playstyle allow both at once because the majority of gamers will never play it any other way.Sure, you COULD load up with explosive rounds, or dual rail extentions and then go around shooting for a little while and take cover while your long overheat time ticked down. But you would be killing things more slowly and you would understand that you were weakening yourself for the sake of making the combat more interesting.
For example, I ran around with an explosive round laden sniper rifle for a while on insanity mode. I struggled with it for several fights on virmire and then did the math. It went something like this: "Okay, took me like 20 hits to kill this krogan instead of 30, but it took me more than twice as long between shots, so technically I'm reducing my dps by about 20%. Also, I spend most of my time listening to an annoying overheat klaxxon. There's no way my shepard would want to fight like this. I think I'll go back to my frictionless inferno/snowblinds now..." Then I realized that with a single medical interface slotted in my armor, I could perma marksman with my pistol and kill things about 3 times faster.
It was really hard to justify doing anything else at that point, since whenever I did, things never seemed to die. I was bored when I nerfed myself by using the worse system because things didn't die, and I was bored when I did things the right way because the right way was boring.Good game design is about choice. But for most gamers, a choice between being more effective and being less effective is not a choice at all. (And if you think about it in roleplay terms, what shepard wouldn't choose to be as powerful as possible at all times? The fate of all life in the galaxy is at stake!)
Now (ME2) you have to choose. Do you want to play in a complex and effective way and be more successful, or do you want to play in a simple and less effective way and possibly die? It's essentially the same choice as in ME1, except now there are actual consequences for playing in a simple way. (Less strategy in what guns you use and when and what powers you use and when.)
Now, why steer people away from the simple route? Because the less things you're doing the more easily you can get bored. If most players are being encouraged to play in a way they find boring, then they are going to have a less enjoyable experience than if they played in a way that was fun. The flip side of this is
if you are rewarding players for playing the boring way through combat effectiveness, then by definition you are punishing the players who want to play in a more complex and strategic fashion for playing that way.I think I also know why you're seeing a lot of players who have shooter experience say negative things about the fighting system in ME1: They know how much more interesting and complex a game with shooting elements can be. They know how interesting it can be to look at a battlefield tactically and make real gameplay decisions based on the surroundings, the situation, and their remaining resources. (Be it ammo or grenades or fuel or what have you.) They see that these changes are things that worked well to reward interesting play in other games they have played, and can see how it would work well to fix what was wrong with ME1.
Anyway, when it comes down to it, no one is forcing you to play in the way that is most effective. (In a way, this is like your same argument, where you were saying nobody is forcing me to put frictionless materials in my weapon.) You are the one who wants to continue playing the same way even though it won't work as well, and it is on you to adapt.
But I've said it before and I'll say it again: You could always move to an easier difficulty setting and play the same way. It sounds insulting, but in no way am I intending any insult to your skill. I'm only trying to suggest ways to glean fun from the new system. In fact, I did the very same thing for my last ME1 run. I lowered my difficulty from insanity to hardcore so that I could use a slightly more reckless and simple strategy and still be successful, and I had more fun.
Modifié par Soruyao, 25 janvier 2010 - 12:54 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
