891 réponses à ce sujet

[UpUpAway]

Or it could be that some people just aren't fond of game mechanics that enforce playstyle.

... or don't particularly enjoy trying to RP a character that doesn't seem to have the smarts to properly prepare for missions, and has to rely on enemy drops to survive.

 

... but having infinite ammo does nothing to enhance/support that form of role play either.  It just removes any need to "properly prepare" for missions, so you still can't role play as somehow who is necessarily smart enough to properly prepare for missions.

[Pasquale1234]

... but having infinite ammo does nothing to enhance/support that form of role play either.  It just removes any need to "properly prepare" for missions, so you still can't role play as somehow who is necessarily smart enough to properly prepare for missions.

There's a pretty wide range between being required to swap weapons due to lack of ammo for your preferred weapon and infinite ammo.

[Elhanan]

Sorry, a tactical retreat is definitely a warranted tactic on a first playthrough.  That the ammo respawns behind you to enable that tactic is something the developer has put in that location specifically because they know they've designed the battle and battlefield in such a way that the player can logically just decide to use a tactical retreat during the normal course of combat.  They could've have just as easily designed those missions to up the odds of enemies dropping more than enough ammo so that you will inevitably not be collecting it all as you advance (and perhaps it would have been a more realistic choice for them to have made).  It still holds, though, that even without respawning ammo, a tactical retreat to go back to pick up uncollected ammo that you seen dropped in a particular location is a very valid role play option under the circumstances (i.e. it's not metagaming) and it is an option that does not require you to feel like you're scouring the battlefield.
 
Use the suggestion if you want or don't... ME2 is what it is.
 
@Sylvius - and having the enemy sometimes cut off that tactical retreat is just "life" - then you adapt by going forward short on ammo.

I use tactical retreats already, and try and avoid using all my ammo; a reason I have not played a Soldier. And ME2 seems to be a lesser game than the others.

Enemies cutting off a retreat is one thing; shifting halls and the like seems a bit much to swallow, though.

[capn233]

Against the Creepers, it works well; the Wiki is correct.
 

 

Everything is relative.  Pistols are faster through there than untrained shotguns.  Every class already has pistol training for dps and melee for knockdown.  The benefit of using untrained weapons in ME1 is minuscule at best, and that small advantage is using untrained high level spectre ARs with accuracy mods, not untrained shotguns.

 

Or it could be that some people just aren't fond of game mechanics that enforce playstyle.

... or don't particularly enjoy trying to RP a character that doesn't seem to have the smarts to properly prepare for missions, and has to rely on enemy drops to survive.

 

Respectfully, missing shots or using the wrong tool for the wrong job is not the definition of a playstyle, it is the definition of a novice.

[Fixers0]

With HE rounds you could  practically turn any untrained weapon in ME1 into blast cannon. Especially shotguns. I'd constantly used my high level  untrained shotgun to finish of enemies during my sentinel playthrough.

[UpUpAway]

I use tactical retreats already, and try and avoid using all my ammo; a reason I have not played a Soldier. And ME2 seems to be a lesser game than the others.

Enemies cutting off a retreat is one thing; shifting halls and the like seems a bit much to swallow, though.

 

"Shifting halls?"  To the best of my knowledge, encountering doors locked behind you does not equate to halls shifting.  The only mission in ME2 that might have even come close to giving that feeling is the Collector Ship and the dialogue clearly explains that the group is, in fact, cut off from going back the same way by the enemy and EDI is opening up alternative routes for the team to take.  In Jack's recruitment mission, the player is clearly told that the warden is locking down the way behind the team.  On Tali's and Legion's loyalty mission, the geth can easily lock down doors behind the team without themselves being behind the team.  In Overlord, the AI is clearly described as actively "herding" the squad towards it's own objective and, as with the geth, clearly can lock down areas without physically being near them.

 

Furthermore, even a mere soldier in ME2 can still survive and get through missions after running out of ammo... he'she still has concussive shot, melee abilities, whatever abilities his/her squad mates have, and the ability to request his/her squad mates to concentrate their fire on particular enemies.

[Pasquale1234]

Respectfully, missing shots or using the wrong tool for the wrong job is not the definition of a playstyle, it is the definition of a novice.

Respectfully, not allowing enough ammo to complete a battle using the player's preferred weapon is the definition of a gameplay system intended to force a playstyle (swapping weapons, using powers, waiting for squadmates to finish the battle).

There is no reason whatsoever to limit ammo availability per weapon other than to force you to use other available strategies.

[Elhanan]

Everything is relative.  Pistols are faster through there than untrained shotguns.  Every class already has pistol training for dps and melee for knockdown.  The benefit of using untrained weapons in ME1 is minuscule at best, and that small advantage is using untrained high level spectre ARs with accuracy mods, not untrained shotguns. 
 
Respectfully, missing shots or using the wrong tool for the wrong job is not the definition of a playstyle, it is the definition of a novice.

Yep; pistols in ME1 worked fine, but having followers with shotguns worked well, too. Also, it may be possible that varied Players use varied tactics, instead of belittling others in the belief that only they are correct. Respectfully, of course....

[Cyonan]

Respectfully, not allowing enough ammo to complete a battle using the player's preferred weapon is the definition of a gameplay system intended to force a playstyle (swapping weapons, using powers, waiting for squadmates to finish the battle).

There is no reason whatsoever to limit ammo availability per weapon other than to force you to use other available strategies.

It makes ammo into a resource management, done so by either using different weapons or by being accurate.

 

If they were going to just saturate us with enough ammo to beat every fight, there is little point in even having ammo. You might as well just take the Overwatch approach where ammo only determines how often you have to reload but you otherwise have infinite amounts of it.

[Elhanan]

"Shifting halls?"  To the best of my knowledge, encountering doors locked behind you does not equate to halls shifting.  The only mission in ME2 that might have even come close to giving that feeling is the Collector Ship and the dialogue clearly explains that the group is, in fact, cut off from going back the same way by the enemy and EDI is opening up alternative routes for the team to take.  In Jack's recruitment mission, the player is clearly told that the warden is locking down the way behind the team.  On Tali's and Legion's loyalty mission, the geth can easily lock down doors behind the team without themselves being behind the team.  In Overlord, the AI is clearly described as actively "herding" the squad towards it's own objective and, as with the geth, clearly can lock down areas without physically being near them.
 
Furthermore, even a mere soldier in ME2 can still survive and get through missions after running out of ammo... he'she still has concussive shot, melee abilities, whatever abilities his/her squad mates have, and the ability to request his/her squad mates to concentrate their fire on particular enemies.

Seem to recall having troubles going back for unknown reasons in numerous locations actually: Garrus, Samara, Mordin, Miranda, Grunt personal missions for starters.

Skip Overlord due to forced use of the Hammerhead; also DLC not installing properly to physical disk installation.

Am a fan of Concussive Shot; not melee though. But have seen enough of glitched Ammo power reloading problems, and static gameplay on streams to know that a Soldier and Vanguard campaign are not interesting enough at this time for the attempt.

[Elhanan]

It makes ammo into a resource management, done so by either using different weapons or by being accurate.
 
If they were going to just saturate us with enough ammo to beat every fight, there is little point in even having ammo. You might as well just take the Overwatch approach where ammo only determines how often you have to reload but you otherwise have infinite amounts of it.

It still exists in ME3, but more under the Player's control with increased encumbrance, ammo bonuses, and no weapon restrictions.

[Pasquale1234]

It makes ammo into a resource management, done so by either using different weapons or by being accurate.

There's a reason that I specified "per weapon". It's been suggested that the clips could have been pooled and all weapons draw from the same pool. It would have made a lot more sense, imho, because not only would it have enabled you to use the "right tool at the right time" but also would have given more meaning to the notion that they were universal.
 

If they were going to just saturate us with enough ammo to beat every fight, there is little point in even having ammo.

I prefer the overheating system.

ME3 saturated us with ammo crates everywhere.

[Cyonan]

It still exists in ME3, but more under the Player's control with increased encumbrance, ammo bonuses, and no weapon restrictions.

 

ME3 gives you so much ammo there isn't any point in having it because you have to be really bad at aiming to actually run out.

 

The weight thing was also highly ineffective at doing anything it was aimed at doing.

 

There's a reason that I specified "per weapon". It's been suggested that the clips could have been pooled and all weapons draw from the same pool. It would have made a lot more sense, imho, because not only would it have enabled you to use the "right tool at the right time" but also would have given more meaning to the notion that they were universal.

I prefer the overheating system.

ME3 saturated us with ammo crates everywhere.

 

The way ME2 was designed if they all pulled from the same pool of clips, I just would have used my sniper rifle or shotgun 95% of the time. The main reason I stopped using one of those weapons on my Infiltrator or Vanguard is because they ran out of bullets if I tried to use them all the time.

 

I prefer the overheat system as well but that's just a variation of infinite ammo.

[Elhanan]

ME3 gives you so much ammo there isn't any point in having it because you have to be really bad at aiming to actually run out. 
 
The way ME2 was designed if they all pulled from the same pool of clips, I just would have used my sniper rifle or shotgun 95% of the time. The main reason I stopped using one of those weapons on my Infiltrator or Vanguard is because they ran out of bullets if I tried to use them all the time.
 
I prefer the overheat system as well but that's just a variation of infinite ammo.

But while ME3 may not requite clip hunts, ammo is till limited; annoyance removed, and Players get control over which method of weapons to use: clips or cooldown. ME2 clip hunts removed immersion repeatedly; much prefer to have unlimited ammo, if that were actually the case.

[Pasquale1234]

ME3 gives you so much ammo there isn't any point in having it because you have to be really bad at aiming to actually run out.

I think one reason ME added the thermal clip system is because shooter fans prolly enjoy (or are accustomed to) having a reload mechanic. With ME3, ammo was no longer a resource management issue, but the reload mechanic was still in place.
 

The way ME2 was designed if they all pulled from the same pool of clips, I just would have used my sniper rifle or shotgun 95% of the time. The main reason I stopped using one of those weapons on my Infiltrator or Vanguard is because they ran out of bullets if I tried to use them all the time.

Thus my claim that it enforced a playstyle. The ammo limits meant that you had to somehow change strategies - whether it was swapping weapons, using powers, or whatever. You couldn't just blow through it using your favorite weapon most of the time.
 

I prefer the overheat system as well but that's just a variation of infinite ammo.

It sort of is, but with limits on fire rate.

I have the impression that one of the reasons some people find the clip system preferable is because they can pump out a lot more rounds in less time.

[Cyonan]

But while ME3 may not requite clip hunts, ammo is till limited; annoyance removed, and Players get control over which method of weapons to use: clips or cooldown. ME2 clip hunts removed immersion repeatedly; much prefer to have unlimited ammo, if that were actually the case.

 

It gives me so much ammo that I don't really want to say it's that limited. Like I said, you have to be pretty bad to actually fully run out of ammo in that game. Either that or you're bringing nothing but a Harrier.

 

To be honest I never really had an issue in ME2 without clip hunts. I just didn't try to use the same gun 95% of the time and it worked out fine for me.

 

I think one reason ME added the thermal clip system is because shooter fans prolly enjoy (or are accustomed to) having a reload mechanic. With ME3, ammo was no longer a resource management issue, but the reload mechanic was still in place.
 
Thus my claim that it enforced a playstyle. The ammo limits meant that you had to somehow change strategies - whether it was swapping weapons, using powers, or whatever. You couldn't just blow through it using your favorite weapon most of the time.

It sort of is, but with limits on fire rate.

I have the impression that one of the reasons some people find the clip system preferable is because they can pump out a lot more rounds in less time.

 

I've heard the clips were added to make it more like "traditional shooters" though you could also do the Overwatch system where we have infinite ammo but have to reload. Omni-tools already seem to be capable of fabricating objects in the field, so it wouldn't have been lore breaking either. ME3 was pretty much doing that anyway since it threw so much ammo at us.

 

At some point I generally don't mind enforcing certain playstyles based on class choices especially since abilities will kind of do that. I find it good design to make the player have to sometimes think on their feet and switch up their approach to combat.

 

The funny thing about the "can fire more shots in less time" that people think is that with the right setup you'd basically never overheat anyway =P

 

Frictionless Materials OP.

[capn233]

With HE rounds you could  practically turn any untrained weapon in ME1 into blast cannon. Especially shotguns. I'd constantly used my high level  untrained shotgun to finish of enemies during my sentinel playthrough.

 
Not really.  SR accuracy is so bad untrained that Spectre X sniper with dual Combat Optics X crouched will still hardly hit in the center making the rate of fire penalty with HE prohibitive.
 
The only AR setup that makes any sense with HE is spectre running dual frictionless restricted to master overkill only.
 
SG w/ HE untrained overheating every time has bottom drawer dps.
 

Respectfully, not allowing enough ammo to complete a battle using the player's preferred weapon is the definition of a gameplay system intended to force a playstyle (swapping weapons, using powers, waiting for squadmates to finish the battle).

There is no reason whatsoever to limit ammo availability per weapon other than to force you to use other available strategies.

 
You are again pushing the definition of "playstyle" to extremes.  The highest difficulty should indeed be difficult.
 
If you want to use your pet weapon exclusively in ME2, by all means do this.  The game does not prevent you.  The game does not need to reward all strategies and tactics equally to be a role playing game.
  

ME3 gives you so much ammo there isn't any point in having it because you have to be really bad at aiming to actually run out.
 
The weight thing was also highly ineffective at doing anything it was aimed at doing.
 
 
The way ME2 was designed if they all pulled from the same pool of clips, I just would have used my sniper rifle or shotgun 95% of the time. The main reason I stopped using one of those weapons on my Infiltrator or Vanguard is because they ran out of bullets if I tried to use them all the time.
 
I prefer the overheat system as well but that's just a variation of infinite ammo.

On point.

[capn233]

Yep; pistols in ME1 worked fine, but having followers with shotguns worked well, too. Also, it may be possible that varied Players use varied tactics, instead of belittling others in the belief that only they are correct. Respectfully, of course....

 

I haven't actually belittled anybody in this thread.

 

As far as being convinced about being right, that is because I am with respect to mechanics.  Sorry if you were mad at me for poking fun with the crowbar, but you can calculate Predator armor DPS and it is better than all the shotguns including Claymore, all the SMGs, the Avenger, GPR, and the Mantis.  How is it ineffective when used in the intended role?  Or before with ammo damage contribution to total.  It is calculable.  This isn't like somebody claiming "I prefer caster Sentinel."  That is a playstyle, an opinion, and something I am not going to bother to argue.

[Pasquale1234]

At some point I generally don't mind enforcing certain playstyles based on class choices especially since abilities will kind of do that. I find it good design to make the player have to sometimes think on their feet and switch up their approach to combat.

Class choices - sure.

Having to switch weapons because you're out of ammo (or saving it) doesn't strike me as a particularly interesting way of getting players to think on their feet. Actually, it's more a matter of planning ahead, and conserving ammo for specific weapons.

I wouldn't have minded it nearly so much if the clips were pooled. As implemented, I found it to be mostly a source of irritation.
 

You are again pushing the definition of "playstyle" to extremes.

Or for some reason, you don't like how I'm using it. Shrug.
 

The highest difficulty should indeed be difficult.

No disagreement there, but this has nothing to do with difficulty. ME2's per weapon ammo limits did not make the game one eensy-weensy bit harder IME, just less convenient and ultimately less fun because I had to use weapons / strategies that I find less enjoyable.
 

If you want to use your pet weapon exclusively in ME2, by all means do this. The game does not prevent you.

I can't. It does, indeed, prevent me from doing so because it runs out of ammo. I have to swap weapons, use powers, or wait for squadmates to finish the battle.
 

On point.

I find it odd that you so approve of Cyonan's comment that included this bit:
The way ME2 was designed if they all pulled from the same pool of clips, I just would have used my sniper rifle or shotgun 95% of the time. The main reason I stopped using one of those weapons on my Infiltrator or Vanguard is because they ran out of bullets if I tried to use them all the time.

... while at the same time insisting that I could have used my pet weapon exclusively and denying the idea that ME2 forced playstyle.

[Elhanan]

I haven't actually belittled anybody in this thread.
 
As far as being convinced about being right, that is because I am with respect to mechanics.  Sorry if you were mad at me for poking fun with the crowbar, but you can calculate Predator armor DPS and it is better than all the shotguns including Claymore, all the SMGs, the Avenger, GPR, and the Mantis.  How is it ineffective when used in the intended role?  Or before with ammo damage contribution to total.  It is calculable.  This isn't like somebody claiming "I prefer caster Sentinel."  That is a playstyle, an opinion, and something I am not going to bother to argue.

Stating that missing shots is the sign of a novice is not respectful; signifies arrogance, IMO. Not myself that is of concern, but the general manner which is presented to others of a differing opinion.

And No; evidence suggests that ME2 mechanics is inferior to the other games. Pistols lacks punch; the Predator is all but useless until one gets the Carniflex from Mordin. And while you present comparisons to shotguns, SMG's, AR's, and sniper rifles, the Players cannot do that much in game for several classes due to weapon restrictions. Better to use powers, and only use the pistol as a latter option.

[capn233]

No disagreement there, but this has nothing to do with difficulty. ME2's per weapon ammo limits did not make the game one eensy-weensy bit harder IME, just less convenient and ultimately less fun because I had to use weapons / strategies that I find less enjoyable.

It does have to do with difficulty and the balancing of the classes. The argument that it has no effect on difficulty seems spurious.
 

I can't. It does, indeed, prevent me from doing so because it runs out of ammo. I have to swap weapons, use powers, or wait for squadmates to finish the battle.

Is this true on all difficulties, or only at high difficulty / Insanity?
 

I find it odd that you so approve of Cyonan's comment that included this bit:
The way ME2 was designed if they all pulled from the same pool of clips, I just would have used my sniper rifle or shotgun 95% of the time. The main reason I stopped using one of those weapons on my Infiltrator or Vanguard is because they ran out of bullets if I tried to use them all the time.

... while at the same time insisting that I could have used my pet weapon exclusively and denying the idea that ME2 forced playstyle.

Not odd at all. He clearly explains why clip scarcity affects difficulty.

You are trying to define playstyle so broadly that essentially every gameplay or difficulty mechanic constrains playstyle in some way. Why can't I play a character who only uses overload on everything? Why can't I play a lazy character who has Garrus kill everybody for him? In some cases you can, just not efficiently on Insanity.

It is not reasonable to believe that they can make a challenging difficulty with any sort of depth that allows every single tactic that anybody could dream up to optimal.

[capn233]

And No; evidence suggests that ME2 mechanics is inferior to the other games. Pistols lacks punch; the Predator is all but useless until one gets the Carniflex from Mordin. And while you present comparisons to shotguns, SMG's, AR's, and sniper rifles, the Players cannot do that much in game for several classes due to weapon restrictions. Better to use powers, and only use the pistol as a latter option.

Please cite the evidence if it exists.  Objective, actual evidence.

 

The Predator is a decent anti-armor weapon.  It has above average armor DPS.  Calling it useless is like saying that a hammer is useless because it doesn't secure screws.

 

Every class that has the Predator has access to at the very least SMGs for shield / barrier work.  There are options to boost damage against health for every class.  The top difficulty may be punishing, but it outright tells you how to get bonus damage and what weapons are best against what defense layers.

[Cyonan]

And No; evidence suggests that ME2 mechanics is inferior to the other games. Pistols lacks punch; the Predator is all but useless until one gets the Carniflex from Mordin. And while you present comparisons to shotguns, SMG's, AR's, and sniper rifles, the Players cannot do that much in game for several classes due to weapon restrictions. Better to use powers, and only use the pistol as a latter option.

 

Even on Insanity I find the Predator more than fine as a weapon.

 

I mean, I prefer the Carnifex because I like high damage per shot weapons in general but I've never found the Predator to be a useless weapon.

[Pasquale1234]

It does have to do with difficulty and the balancing of the classes. The argument that it has no effect on difficulty seems spurious.

Perhaps. My dislike of it has nothing to do with difficulty; just enjoyment. If the design goal was to ramp up difficulty, it was not very effective. I never came close to running out of ammo overall, just ammo for the particular weapon I'd prefer to use.

I vaguely remember one particular scenario - Mordin's LM - where I'd mostly use the pistol or SMG to conserve sniper ammo for the boom squads in the balconies - but that requires metagaming. Otherwise, you're doing what? Constantly switching weapons to make sure you'll always have some of each type of ammo, just in case?

Not my idea of fun - and from an RP perspective, I take issue with the dependence on enemy drops.
 

Is this true on all difficulties, or only at high difficulty / Insanity?

Ammo capacity does not change according to difficulty setting.
 

Not odd at all. He clearly explains why clip scarcity affects difficulty.

I'm sorry, but I don't see that. What I see is Cyonan backing up my assertion that the game did not provide enough ammo per weapon to use a pet weapon exclusively.
 

You are trying to define playstyle so broadly that essentially every gameplay or difficulty mechanic constrains playstyle in some way. Why can't I play a character who only uses overload on everything? Why can't I play a lazy character who has Garrus kill everybody for him? In some cases you can, just not efficiently on Insanity.

It is not reasonable to believe that they can make a challenging difficulty with any sort of depth that allows every single tactic that anybody could dream up to optimal.

I think you're being hyperbolic here.

The only references I've made using the term playstyle are directly related to ammo constraints per weapon. I would be much less resistant to ammo management in a meta sense, but the design dictated how my thermal clip supply would be allocated between weapons.

[capn233]

Perhaps. My dislike of it has nothing to do with difficulty; just enjoyment. If the design goal was to ramp up difficulty, it was not very effective. I never came close to running out of ammo overall, just ammo for the particular weapon I'd prefer to use.

I vaguely remember one particular scenario - Mordin's LM - where I'd mostly use the pistol or SMG to conserve sniper ammo for the boom squads in the balconies - but that requires metagaming. Otherwise, you're doing what? Constantly switching weapons to make sure you'll always have some of each type of ammo, just in case?

 

Most people would complain about Mantis spare ammo, it seems.

But the game does not force anybody to kill the pyros with sniper shots. In fact the Predator is more than capable of dispatching them.

There is freedom in how you can approach scarcity of clips. You can rotate weapons, you could use powers, you could ensure that you ragdoll enemies on health for more ammo efficiency, etc.

I don't see much difference in using a single weapon for the whole mission versus using one specific power the whole mission. The game shouldn't be simple (as in not complex) enough that this is optimal on high difficulty. I am tempted to just go replay Professor with whatever class and force a single gun. Probably the only fight this will matter will be the transition to Blood Pack territory. Depends partly on if the player bothered to buy a weapon upgrade beforehand. They are available and bought ones don't require the research terminal.
 

Ammo capacity does not change according to difficulty setting.

 

Right but enemy scaling is different and there are fewer protections. The end result is essentially higher ammo efficiency. Which means it is more likely that it can be done. I haven't played anything but Insanity in a long time as well, which is why I was asking. I think this is a fair question in relation to whether clip scarcity and weapon choice matters to difficulty.
 

I'm sorry, but I don't see that. What I see is Cyonan backing up my assertion that the game did not provide enough ammo per weapon to use a pet weapon exclusively.

Well here are the posts.
 

ME3 gives you so much ammo there isn't any point in having it because you have to be really bad at aiming to actually run out.
 
The weight thing was also highly ineffective at doing anything it was aimed at doing.
 
 
The way ME2 was designed if they all pulled from the same pool of clips, I just would have used my sniper rifle or shotgun 95% of the time. The main reason I stopped using one of those weapons on my Infiltrator or Vanguard is because they ran out of bullets if I tried to use them all the time.
 
I prefer the overheat system as well but that's just a variation of infinite ammo.

 
It is fine with me if somebody prefers overheat, but it is clear that ammo scarcity is there to attempt to punish missed shots in ME3 (where it fails), and in ME2 to also to punish ignoring weapon multipliers.  The followup clarifies further...
 

It gives me so much ammo that I don't really want to say it's that limited. Like I said, you have to be pretty bad to actually fully run out of ammo in that game. Either that or you're bringing nothing but a Harrier.
 
To be honest I never really had an issue in ME2 without clip hunts. I just didn't try to use the same gun 95% of the time and it worked out fine for me.
 
 
I've heard the clips were added to make it more like "traditional shooters" though you could also do the Overwatch system where we have infinite ammo but have to reload. Omni-tools already seem to be capable of fabricating objects in the field, so it wouldn't have been lore breaking either. ME3 was pretty much doing that anyway since it threw so much ammo at us.
 
At some point I generally don't mind enforcing certain playstyles based on class choices especially since abilities will kind of do that. I find it good design to make the player have to sometimes think on their feet and switch up their approach to combat.

 

I agree with several points he made, didn't quote them all.  Didn't edit out the part about overheat.
 

I think you're being hyperbolic here.

The only references I've made using the term playstyle are directly related to ammo constraints per weapon. I would be much less resistant to ammo management in a meta sense, but the design dictated how my thermal clip supply would be allocated between weapons.

 

I don't find it all that hyperbolic. I don't find ammo scarcity in ME2 that huge a problem unless you start using weapons against the wrong protections.  This isn't to say that it doesn't affect difficulty at all, it is simply recognition that if somebody knows the mechanics it doesn't turn into a huge deal.  If you are exclusively running one gun, then it is implied you are doing that, at least with any class / weapon that we could be discussing early game before DCC.

What if I only like Incinerate as a power and want to use that? Pretty inefficient against synthetics, somewhat inefficient against health. Probably would need to fire a weapon to fill in the gaps. There isn't a huge difference between that and mixing weapons / powers in my mind to use your favorite weapon. The only thing the game actually forces you to do is create a cohesive strategy.