339 réponses à ce sujet

[DPSSOC]

My problem with the new heat sink is that there's no difference.  We pick up heatsinks and they go to whatever weapon we use, so why not just have a single pool of heatsinks across all weapons.  Also, and this is a problem with most shooters, I don't like how part clips are handled; I'm a firm believer that if you pop a clip early you should lose the shots that were left, makes the decision of whether/when to pop a clip early a bit more interesting.

Reorte wrote...
Here's a question - would people be complaining about it if ME2 was a prequel?

Yes, because it would have been a prequel.

Modifié par DPSSOC, 31 décembre 2011 - 07:55 .

[Dr. Jacko]

 I miss the old days, when people had enough imagination to ignore things or make up their own reasons. Whenever I find an inconsistency, I either ignore it and treat it as retcon (if it's negligible, like the thermal clips) or fill in the gaps myself (like with Charge).
As for gameplay, let's face it - reloading and scrounging for ammo (which us Adepts never have to do ) is more intuitive. The first game's system was, for lack of a better word, awkward. You focused more on wrangling a meter than actually fighting early on, and later on the game just breaks. There's a difference between a mechanic that's unique and innovative, and a mechanic that nobody uses because the alternative works better.

[tjzsf]

Dr. Jacko, you don't think all that needed to happen with the old mechanic was to just reduce the variability between the somewhat absurd amounts of heat managing in the beginning and the somewhat ignorable amounts of heat managing in the end? Like, say, frictionless only reducing 10% heat generation at most and Scram Rails continuing to increment heat?

1 of 6 classes never have to scrounge. Infiltrators do, since sniper rifles that are not the Viper eat up sinks like nothing. Vanguards to a lesser extent, and that's only because shottys at least get multiple shots per clip and can get their magazine capacity upgraded. But regardless, scrounging takes effort, while waiting for gun to cool down takes far less effort. One would think the thing that takes less effort would be more intuitive.

[Dr. Jacko]

tjzsf wrote...

Dr. Jacko, you don't think all that needed to happen with the old mechanic was to just reduce the variability between the somewhat absurd amounts of heat managing in the beginning and the somewhat ignorable amounts of heat managing in the end? Like, say, frictionless only reducing 10% heat generation at most and Scram Rails continuing to increment heat?

1 of 6 classes never have to scrounge. Infiltrators do, since sniper rifles that are not the Viper eat up sinks like nothing. Vanguards to a lesser extent, and that's only because shottys at least get multiple shots per clip and can get their magazine capacity upgraded. But regardless, scrounging takes effort, while waiting for gun to cool down takes far less effort. One would think the thing that takes less effort would be more intuitive.

It's the reloading part that's more intuitive. It's instantaneous, doesn't require any attention on your part, and is easier to balance. Having to dig around for ammo isn't a flaw in gameplay mechanics, it's a balance issue - the ammo capacity of shotguns and sniper rifles was set too low. Lesson learned, it'll probably be fixed in ME3. But Mass Effect 1's system just didn't feel like the way guns should handle. A small balancing issue is no reason to go back to a system that was broken fundamentally.

[seirhart]

I might be in the minority here, but I don't like the idea of what bioware did for ME 2 I prefer the way the weapons were in the first one.

[Destroydacre]

Dr. Jacko wrote...

 I miss the old days, when people had enough imagination to ignore things or make up their own reasons. Whenever I find an inconsistency, I either ignore it and treat it as retcon (if it's negligible, like the thermal clips) or fill in the gaps myself (like with Charge).
As for gameplay, let's face it - reloading and scrounging for ammo (which us Adepts never have to do ) is more intuitive. The first game's system was, for lack of a better word, awkward. You focused more on wrangling a meter than actually fighting early on, and later on the game just breaks. There's a difference between a mechanic that's unique and innovative, and a mechanic that nobody uses because the alternative works better.

If lore changes were implemented correctly or even just in a way that made sense, using your imagination to create explanations for inconsistencies wouldn't be necessary. Bioware sells itself on making great stories so why should I have to create part of the story myself?

[Dr. Jacko]

Destroydacre wrote...

Dr. Jacko wrote...

 I miss the old days, when people had enough imagination to ignore things or make up their own reasons. Whenever I find an inconsistency, I either ignore it and treat it as retcon (if it's negligible, like the thermal clips) or fill in the gaps myself (like with Charge).
As for gameplay, let's face it - reloading and scrounging for ammo (which us Adepts never have to do ) is more intuitive. The first game's system was, for lack of a better word, awkward. You focused more on wrangling a meter than actually fighting early on, and later on the game just breaks. There's a difference between a mechanic that's unique and innovative, and a mechanic that nobody uses because the alternative works better.

If lore changes were implemented correctly or even just in a way that made sense, using your imagination to create explanations for inconsistencies wouldn't be necessary. Bioware sells itself on making great stories so why should I have to create part of the story myself?

Because that's the point of an RPG?

[tjzsf]

Dr. Jacko wrote...

It's the reloading part that's more intuitive. It's instantaneous, doesn't require any attention on your part, and is easier to balance. Having to dig around for ammo isn't a flaw in gameplay mechanics, it's a balance issue - the ammo capacity of shotguns and sniper rifles was set too low. Lesson learned, it'll probably be fixed in ME3. But Mass Effect 1's system just didn't feel like the way guns should handle. A small balancing issue is no reason to go back to a system that was broken fundamentally.

I think we're looking at two different meanings of "intuitive" here. Somewhat analogous to keyboards. You say a QWERTY layout is better because it feels the way keyboards should feel and it's what you see most other preexisting computer users using, while I say an ABCDEF layout is better because it would be much faster to learn where all the keys are as opposed to QWERTY's random scattering of keys to slow down typing so typewriters wouldn't jam*. As for brokenness, I can apply the same reasoning you use - if gameplay annoyances with having to scrounge for ammo in ME2's system are resolved by simply tweaking the numbers of said system to give you more ammo, then it follows that gameplay annoyances with the variability of your skills (going from death is god to god of death) in ME1's system are just as easily resolved by tweaking the numbers of said system to make the variability smaller?

*this is a simplified scenario meant to illustrate a case. Other readers, please don't talk about how Dvorak is best or how QWERTY supposedly has more frequently used keys near your more dextrous fingers or how it actually wasn't to make typewriters slower or something. You can break any analogy argument by taking the analogy out of context, but doing so doesn't disprove the point the analogy was meant to illustrate.

[Dr. Jacko]

tjzsf wrote...

Dr. Jacko wrote...

It's the reloading part that's more intuitive. It's instantaneous, doesn't require any attention on your part, and is easier to balance. Having to dig around for ammo isn't a flaw in gameplay mechanics, it's a balance issue - the ammo capacity of shotguns and sniper rifles was set too low. Lesson learned, it'll probably be fixed in ME3. But Mass Effect 1's system just didn't feel like the way guns should handle. A small balancing issue is no reason to go back to a system that was broken fundamentally.

I think we're looking at two different meanings of "intuitive" here. Somewhat analogous to keyboards. You say a QWERTY layout is better because it feels the way keyboards should feel and it's what you see most other preexisting computer users using, while I say an ABCDEF layout is better because it would be much faster to learn where all the keys are as opposed to QWERTY's random scattering of keys to slow down typing so typewriters wouldn't jam*. As for brokenness, I can apply the same reasoning you use - if gameplay annoyances with having to scrounge for ammo in ME2's system are resolved by simply tweaking the numbers of said system to give you more ammo, then it follows that gameplay annoyances with the variability of your skills (going from death is god to god of death) in ME1's system are just as easily resolved by tweaking the numbers of said system to make the variability smaller?

You're absolutely right. Both systems had fundamental issues, and although both systems could be fixed by simply "tweaking the numbers", that's not really the deciding factor in *which* system to use. Using your own example, some people may say the ABCDEF layout is more intuitive, but the standard is QWERTY, so the majority of people will be more accustomed to QWERTY keyboards, and thus find them more intuitive.

The decision was no doubt made with the usual gameplay questions in mind - "Will this system work well with our engine, level design, pacing, etc.?; "Does it satisfy our gameplay philosophy?"; "Will the majority of players like it?"; for Mass Effect 2, Bioware said they wanted combat to be smoother, faster-paced, and more appealing to players. The more traditional mechanics of Mass Effect 2 filled that design philosophy. Sure, there were hiccups, but it was more in line with what Bioware wanted.

Modifié par Dr. Jacko, 09 janvier 2012 - 04:59 .

[Polka14]

People did not like the heat sink because it made no sense and it appeared to show that Bioware doesn't care about consistency. It was a blatant attempt to appeal to fans of normal shooter games and to slowly began to implement features that would transform Mass Effect into a typical shooter game.

The heat sinks in the first Mass Effect was a good solution. Weapons in the Mass Effect universe doesn't need to be resupplied to continuously fire but continuously firing the weapons caused them to overheat. I thought it was a very good system but some did not like it.

I always believed that if the heat sink system from the first game was only slightly redesigned then it could have been more appealing to those shooter fans but it would make sense.

I would have redesigned that part of the HUD to reflect the change. Instead of obvious "round" counter and "ammo" supply counter, I would have had two numbers. Let's use a Locust for an example. The first number on top would represent the number of "rounds" that can be fired from the weapon before it overheats. The number would be 20. This number would slowly increase when not firing the weapon. So if it is fired and only 6 "rounds" remain before it overheats then waiting would slowly increase it until it would return to 20. But waiting is boring and most would prefer to fire it until it overheats. This is where the second number is used. The second would be 10. The number of universal heat sinks available to the player. When the weapon is overheated, the player can choose to replace the heat sink with a new one and the top number would return to the maximum number of 20 and the weapon can be fired again or the player can wait until overheat is over. This number of heat sinks would apply to all weapons and heat sinks would be collected from fallen enemies and from containers on the ground. And when heat sinks are exhausted then the player will be forced to wait when the weapons overheat but heat sinks can be collected so it would not be too easy to be in a situation without heat sinks and the player will never be in a situation without a weapon to use in addition to the fact that weapons would return to firing condition while another weapon was used.

That would have been a good solution to the problem instead of simply deciding that having a more typical shooter design would be best without regards to making any kind of sense. The system in Mass Effect 2 was an "ammo" situation without its actual presence in the game. It was very uninspired way to change the system that was first created in my opinion. I believed that it was never a good sign that Bioware would resort to this.

[tjzsf]

To Dr. Jacko:
wrt Intuitiveness, I daresay most would agree that abcdef is more intuitive than qwerty, as it is recognized by pretty much everyone that qwerty exists solely because everyone already uses it, not because it's actually simpler to use. Another example is how in the US we have feet and inches while everywhere else uses metric. As for "what Bioware wanted", we who are against the sinks recognize this. We also believe that if this was realy "what Bioware wanted", then it is inferior to what they had originally.

To Polka: what I have heard is that this was prototyped and tested, and ultimately ditched because play-testers would just hide behind cover, pop off a couple shots, camp and wait for the heat to drop, then rinse and repeat without bothering with the reloading. This is rather similar to how gunfights actually work. This was also discarded in favor of encouraging players to charge into battle guns blazing, because even if you're an Infiltrator who's supposed to shoot from cover far away, you'll run out of clips and have to fall back to your SMG.

[Polka14]

tjzsf wrote...
To Polka: what I have heard is that this was prototyped and tested, and ultimately ditched because play-testers would just hide behind cover, pop off a couple shots, camp and wait for the heat to drop, then rinse and repeat without bothering with the reloading. This is rather similar to how gunfights actually work. This was also discarded in favor of encouraging players to charge into battle guns blazing, because even if you're an Infiltrator who's supposed to shoot from cover far away, you'll run out of clips and have to fall back to your SMG.

Well I would make the heat sink cool slowly like one second for every "round" recovered and slower for certain weapons. Few would be patient enough to wait every time for a full cooldown excpet after a confrontation. Most would simply use the heat sinks available to them and I think that would be preferable to the heat sink idea used in Mass Effect 2 because my method does not allow for the player to run out of "ammo".  The weapon can continue to fire without extra heat sinks with the slow cooldown but the player would need to use new heat sinks to reliably fire continously without waiting for a cooldown.

My main Shepard is an Infiltrator. I severely dislike not having access to my scoped weapon. A secondary pistol and machine pistol is useful but I should be able to use my main weapon for nearly all situations.

And my method would never have conflicted with the existing Mass Effect "lore" if I am not mistaken.

[rockman0]

I didn't like it at first. I still don't like it now, but I don't mind it either. It's more time-consuming to try and scavenge ammo after a fight than it was to duck behind cover while your weapon cooled down.

It's also annoying that's it explained in the Codex as a "technological advance." So, having to more resources to create millions of ammo clips is a technological advance over weapons that cool themselves and generated their own ammo? Really?

But yeah, I don't mind it as much now. i guess I've adapted to it.

[seirhart]

I still don't like the heat sinks, I like the way they did the weapons in ME 1 with no ammo.