179 réponses à ce sujet

[LoweGear]

Temper_Graniteskul wrote...
I'm playing on Casual already. When I say I'm a crap shot, I'm not exaggerating. Yet somehow, I managed to get by on Normal in ME1. To me, that's a damning statment on the changes to combat.

It's less a damning statement about the changes in combat and more like... a damning statement about your skill as a player, to which you've been rather honest about. Mass Effect 2 is a way more challenging game in general I give you that: I also breezed through Normal Difficulty in ME1, and yet in ME2 I've found myself dying way more than in ME1 on the same difficulty level.

However, it's really no excuse to blame the game for the extra challenge if a player isn't up to it. There are games that are designed to be so difficult that finishing them can be considered a miracle leading more to frustration, but Mass Effect 2 is hardly a game one would consider to be in that league of games. The changes in combat have made the game a bit more challenging, but a challenge in games is no way a "damning" statement in and of itself. All games are meant to have challenges, because the fun for most games is the thrill that comes when you get to the goal after surpassing all the obstacles and opposition thrown at you. This is true whether in video games or in real life sports. While Mass Effect 2 is one of those games that has a larger focus on the storyline presentation and dialogue than combat, it still markets combat as one of its primary elements, but the combat can only succeed if it can actually challenge a player: a cakewalk would've made the combat dull in the long run.

The only real thing one can do in a situation where one admits to having a flaw in something is to... improve. If you have bad aim, then practice aiming until the shots line up right.

[Zhaocore]

Dethateer wrote...

For the last time, that happens because otherwise you'd end up like in Deus Ex: Invisible War, when if you ran out of ammo for one weapon, you ran out for all. Which sucked, since in the last level, in particular, there were no ammo drops whatsoever.

Conclusion, heat clip unrealistic. Codex wrong. Needs fixing. Need better explanation
Suggest to re-enforce security firewalls against geth inflitration. Clearly geth outsmarted organics.
Think clips better overall, false, lies. Need to talk to cerberus about this. Galaxy needs better system.

Modifié par Silger, 11 février 2010 - 06:39 .

[Dethateer]

It's a gameplay mechanic, what the hell is supposed to be realistic about it?

[Zhaocore]

@topic title

[Juztinb42]

So you want realism in a sci-fi game?  Ok.

The old system was science fiction, this system is realism.  The old system was part of the lore and it was interesting.  The new system is the result of a certain publisher.  Not to name anyone in particular though >.>

[Devos]

The implication was that the block of material ammo was shaved from wasn't going to run out any time soon. it would have to be changed it but that happened off camera between missions. You still don't have to change that block in ME2 so I don't see how it's more realistic.

My complaint isn't that there is an ammo system but it's poorly balanced. Early game I ran out of ammo a lot. on one ocasion for every single gun as a soldier because there were no static placements and I got really unlucky with random drops. Compare that to Gears of War and that is much less likely to happen. Everything drops ammo, it just might not be the type you need so you are forced to pick up a gun you might not like. From mid game onwards I never ran out of ammo on my preferred gun, if I dipped below half that was unusual.

The ammo system was added to create tension. It failed. It adds annoyance, it adds busy work, it doesn't add tension. Ammo systems can force you to vary guns but the early game ping pong of full to nearly empty to full every encounter is annoying and the mid-game onwards non-issue really leaves it as busy work. And what about one gun wonder classes like Infiltrators? Is forcing them into using their side arm really going to make the game more fun?

Not that the ME1 system was perfect. Early game you overheated too quickly, late game you could literally have zero heat production on some guns such that they wouldn't over heat even if you were sabotaged. Still bashing ME1's system doesn't change that ME2 has a a bad ammo system.

My idea for a hybrid system is to have your thermal clips passively cool when they aren't in use. In effect you gradually regenerate ammo in combat. Between fights your clips instantly cool so no more clip hunting.

Modifié par Devos, 11 février 2010 - 06:42 .

[Dethateer]

Silger wrote...

@topic title

Not my point. You say it is unrealistic because you can't take clips from one weapon's ammo pool and use them for another. I'm pointing out that that is true, and done on purpose, because otherwise the game would eventually bring you to a point with no exit, because you'll be completely out of ammo. That was my whole point, I didn't say anything about the sink system itself.

Modifié par Dethateer, 11 février 2010 - 06:44 .

[Darth_Ultima]

Erucolindo wrote...


The first system was also, technically,  a limited ammo system in terms of the material you used to fire. According to the codex entry, there was a block of mass in the gun. The gun sheers off a piece of that mass and projects it via mass effect fields. Eventually, you would need to replace that, yet we never had to. It was magically always there.

I don't care how advanced a race is, they will never create a weapon that fire an infinite number of projectiles or an infinite number of energy bolts or beams.

The codex entry says that with a mass effect field they are able to shrink a huge block of ammo down so it could fit in the gun and when a sliver was shaved off it was returned to its original size and fired down the barrel.  It was not infinite but it supplied thousands of rounds of ammo.

I find it hard to believe that two centuries from now they will be using assualt rifles that can only fire 30 round clips before it needs to be reloaded with either ammo or a new heatsink.  As it stands now an AK-47 or an M-16 are about on equal footing with the Avenger and Vindicator.

[Mendelevosa]

I could have sworn Bioware did this so that you would actually have to use your other weapons other than spam countless bullets out of an AR. And for the people that complain about running out of ammo for AR and snipers, you have pistols and SMG as well for christ's sake. Use them. It's not Bioware's fault that you only use ARs, shotties, or snipers and refuse to use anything else.

[Matt VT Schlo]

Bottom line, I've seen people complain that the unlimited ammo has been replaced by the finite ammo. I assume they complain due to limited ammo being hard, which was the point of doint it. That said, I am playing on Veteran, and do not find the limited ammo aspect harder. Half the time, buckets of ammo is dropped completing a fight....and for others, you may be forced to use two or three weapons total. I like the idea of being able to run out, and frankly this aspect should have been even harder.....I personally dig the change

[Temper_Graniteskul]

obie191970 wrote...

Temper_Graniteskul wrote...

LoweGear wrote...

If you don't view the combat as integral to the story, but are getting taxed by combat, then that's what the Casual and Normal difficulty settings are for: So that for people who'd like to get on with the combat quickly without a challenge can breeze right through without a problem. At Normal difficulty running out of ammo for your Assault Rifle or SMG is almost unimaginable.

I'm playing on Casual already. When I say I'm a crap shot, I'm not exaggerating. Yet somehow, I managed to get by on Normal in ME1. To me, that's a damning statment on the changes to combat.

In ME1, you could run into any situation and just start blasting away without using your squad at all and in ME2 I think your squad can be a lot more helpful.  They all have pretty useful skills.  If you use them and the cover wisely, you can get through a lot of areas without having to fire your weapon much at all.  I'm sorry you're having a bad experience, but being an older gamer myself - I know where your coming from.

If they hadn't turned biotic powers into mind bullets, I might agree. Admittedly, I'm in the worst possible position because I also find managing squadmates quite difficult; I much prefer to solo because it saves me having to find the right commands to use the squad AI properly. I was able to use their biotics or tech powers effectively in ME1, but the ubiquitous cover in ME2 has brought to light its 'interrupt' function - which makes no sense. If I can see the target on a bomb (sitting out for no reason), and can target it with a power, then cover shouldn't reasonably get in the way of  exploding it. Yet it does if the line of effect is broken, and now I need to manoeuver people into just the right place to do something they should be able to do from behind cover?

I appreciate that many people seem to find the new system fun and exciting and 'better.' But it's just not the case for some of the rather more unskilled of us that still managed to get through (and sometimes even enjoy) the very lightly FPS-esque combat of the first game. I'd still like to play the game, as I typically find the overall experience of Bioware games to be very enjoyable. But if ME3 is like this one in terms of combat, or worse, more like extant war shooters, I'm just not going to bother. It's too frustrating.

[LoweGear]

Devos wrote...
And what about one gun wonder classes like Infiltrators? Is forcing them into using their side arm really going to make the game more fun?

< Infiltrator Player

And yes, to me it is more fun, since your "sidearms" aren't really useless this time around, and even satisfying to use. Given the variety of enemies that you face in-game expecting to use only a single weapon is one of the quickest ways to getting killed on higher difficulty levels, and even with sufficient ammo the new anti-defense specialization of the weapons ensures that a player's hands would change weapons to suit their tactical needs. My all-powerful Widow Sniper Rifle obviously would be of little use against a horde of Husks that have managed to get within striking range, to which I reply at their advances with an SMG or a Heavy Pistol.

[finnithe]

I don't see why people are having so much trouble adapting to this system, as it was clearly done to ix the gameplay that was broken in ME1. I used to spam my Sniper Rifle in ME1 whenever I could, using it to take down Armatures, Primes and Colossi. Even if I overheated my rifle, it didn't matter because the benefits of taking down one of those geth on foot (oodles of XP) outweighed the fact that it took a long time to do so. As long as I had the advantage of range, the enemy was dead.



I have said this so many times before, it may be fun, but it does not make for challenging game play. In ME2, I'm more cautious with my use of my Sniper Rifle because I'm not sure when I'll receive more ammo for it. Fights of attrition become more difficult if not completely impossible.

[Zhaocore]

Dethateer wrote...
Not my point. You say it is unrealistic because you can't take clips from one weapon's ammo pool and use them for another. I'm pointing out that that is true, and done on purpose, because otherwise the game would eventually bring you to a point with no exit, because you'll be completely out of ammo. That was my whole point, I didn't say anything about the sink system itself.

Point taken. Agree completely on balance reasons.
Still dont like it. Need better system, current one too....limiting.

[Big_Stupid_Jelly]

Whilst I can see why they did it, i'm not really happy about it. In the 'old days' I could go to cover and let my weapon cool down, now I have to look for heatsinks. Yes I know I can change weapons, but I should be able to decide not be strong armed into doing it.



At the end of the day, for me, it comes down to fun, that illusive, as the man himself, aspect that seems to be driven out of games nowadays, being replaced with realism.

[Dethateer]

Silger wrote...

Dethateer wrote...
Not my point. You say it is unrealistic because you can't take clips from one weapon's ammo pool and use them for another. I'm pointing out that that is true, and done on purpose, because otherwise the game would eventually bring you to a point with no exit, because you'll be completely out of ammo. That was my whole point, I didn't say anything about the sink system itself.

Point taken. Agree completely on balance reasons.
Still dont like it. Need better system, current one too....limiting.

Eh, there is a way to reimplement the initial hybrid ammo system... using it myself, despite liking teh new one. Also, OP, how about an argument for the system being more realistic? Claiming it is doesn't make it true.

[Temper_Graniteskul]

LoweGear wrote...

Temper_Graniteskul wrote...
I'm playing on Casual already. When I say I'm a crap shot, I'm not exaggerating. Yet somehow, I managed to get by on Normal in ME1. To me, that's a damning statment on the changes to combat.

It's less a damning statement about the changes in combat and more like... a damning statement about your skill as a player, to which you've been rather honest about. Mass Effect 2 is a way more challenging game in general I give you that: I also breezed through Normal Difficulty in ME1, and yet in ME2 I've found myself dying way more than in ME1 on the same difficulty level.

However, it's really no excuse to blame the game for the extra challenge if a player isn't up to it. There are games that are designed to be so difficult that finishing them can be considered a miracle leading more to frustration, but Mass Effect 2 is hardly a game one would consider to be in that league of games. The changes in combat have made the game a bit more challenging, but a challenge in games is no way a "damning" statement in and of itself. All games are meant to have challenges, because the fun for most games is the thrill that comes when you get to the goal after surpassing all the obstacles and opposition thrown at you. This is true whether in video games or in real life sports. While Mass Effect 2 is one of those games that has a larger focus on the storyline presentation and dialogue than combat, it still markets combat as one of its primary elements, but the combat can only succeed if it can actually challenge a player: a cakewalk would've made the combat dull in the long run.

The only real thing one can do in a situation where one admits to having a flaw in something is to... improve. If you have bad aim, then practice aiming until the shots line up right.

This is where there's a fundamental difference between us, I think. I'm of the opinion that I should be adjusting my character to be better able to meet difficulties in the game; upgrades to armour, weapons, and skills are how I think that should be done. My character gets better at their job. You're operating under the opinion that the player should improve, with which I would agree...to an extent. I'm not asking that the Normal and higher levels of the game should be immune to better player skills. I am asking that I be able to actually get through the game - on Casual, if need be - while having the same minimal level of skill that served well enough in ME1 - the first game in a planned trilogy. I don't think that's too much to ask.

[Devos]

LoweGear wrote...

My all-powerful Widow Sniper Rifle obviously would be of little use against a horde of Husks that have managed to get within striking range, to which I reply at their advances with an SMG or a Heavy Pistol.

You are talking about using your side arms based on situations where I was talking about running out of ammo. The thing is the moment you pick up the widow, or even the viper is when ammo stops being an issue as long as you are vaguely sensible due to the improved weapon and weight of upgrades shifting the balance. That doesn't remove 5 - 15 hours before hand when ammo is such an issue that even in ideal sniping situations your ammo can deplete.

[LoweGear]

Big_Stupid_Jelly wrote...

At the end of the day, for me, it comes down to fun, that illusive, as the man himself, aspect that seems to be driven out of games nowadays, being replaced with realism.

Good thing "Fun" is a subjective definition then: what one person may find fun, another may not. I'm still having fun with games nowadays, so if you're not, I'm sorry to hear that. I just don't like the implied blanket statement that games are no longer fun by virtue of being realistic. Fun and Realism are not mutually exclusive terms: You can have 'fun and realistic' games and 'not fun and realistic' games, but by the same token there are also 'fun and unrealistic' games, and 'not fun and unrealistic' games.

Devos wrote...
You are talking about using your side arms based on situations where I was talking about running out of ammo. The thing is the moment you pick up the widow, or even the viper is when ammo stops being an issue as long as you are vaguely sensible due to the improved weapon and weight of upgrades shifting the balance. That doesn't remove 5 - 15 hours before hand when ammo is such an issue that even in ideal sniping situations your ammo can deplete.

It is strange though that I've never found myself running out of ammo for those 5-15 hours that you've mentioned. 5-15 minutes into the game maybe, when I was still trying to get my bearings on being an Infiltrator. However, once I got the hang of how to manage my ammunition by knowing when and when not to use a particular weapon, when to use a particular ability or power, and learned to rely on my intellectually questionable, yet still effective squadmates for additional firepower and biotic/tech powers, running out of ammo in a combat engagement became a rarity in my experience.

Modifié par LoweGear, 11 février 2010 - 07:19 .

[Dethateer]

Example of lack of realism: MDK2. Fun as hell.

Example of realism: GRAW. Frustrating as hell. But also extremely fulfilling when you finally completed the mission.

[Big_Stupid_Jelly]

LoweGear wrote...

Big_Stupid_Jelly wrote...

At the end of the day, for me, it comes down to fun, that illusive, as the man himself, aspect that seems to be driven out of games nowadays, being replaced with realism.

Good thing "Fun" is a subjective definition then: what one person may find fun, another may not. I'm still having fun with games nowadays, so if you're not, I'm sorry to hear that. I just don't like the implied blanket statement that games are no longer fun by virtue of being realistic. Fun and Realism are not mutually exclusive term: You can have 'fun and realistic' games and 'not fun and realistic' games, but by the same token there are also 'fun and unrealistic' games, and 'not fun and unrealistic' games.

No you're right they are not exclusive, that's true. But there is as much 'reality' in unlimited ammo and gun cool-down as there is in an almost Vorcha like attitude to scouring the battlefield looking for heatsinks.

Someone mentioned earlier that playing on casual should virtually guarantee, as long as you're not stupid, reaching the end of the game, I'm playing on casual and the Praetorians kick my butt so much I detest them. The 2nd one I just sprint from!!

It may be that i'm crap at shooters, well I am 41 and my reactions are slowing, but If ME3 is like this, I'll just pass and replay my Mass Effect 1 again..

[Dethateer]

Uh, Praetorians are horrible on any diff levels. Stay in cover, and pour incendiary rounds into it, or disruptor when it puts up the barrier. Don't bother with heavy weapons, you'll just waste ammo.

[Nick Fox]

Its become a tactical shooter game for most classes rather than anything else imho and I dont support the change in any sort of way myself. Very annoying to look for one round for the infiltraitor's Sniper for ex wich some already pointed out. No flow at all, not my idea of what the ME series stands for, but hey as long as it sells and shooter fans gets their way everything is fine I guess. its not like there is another shooter out there anyway Bioware!



Why not go for some fighting/beat em up events too while you are at it ? That way we dont need weapons or ammo at all, goody.

[Big_Stupid_Jelly]

Dethateer wrote...

Uh, Praetorians are horrible on any diff levels. Stay in cover, and pour incendiary rounds into it, or disruptor when it puts up the barrier. Don't bother with heavy weapons, you'll just waste ammo.

The thing is even on Normal I can lay waste to a division of Krogan, Blue Suns, Eclipse and even take down 3 Heavy Mechs, with my squad...but come  a Preatorian, played on Casual,  and I'm blabbering like a baby.

It may be me, but there's something wrong with this.

[LoweGear]

Not sure about not bothering with heavy weapons, since even on Hardcore a Collector Particle Beam eats through a Praetorian's barriers really quick. Just remember to switch to Disruptor or Incendiary Ammo equipped weapons once that barrier is down, since the Particle Beam doesn't really deal damage to its armor fast enough.



I agree though... Praetorians are nasty no matter what difficulty level you're playing at.