133 réponses à ce sujet

[LoweGear]

@Don Fredek:

Pardon me for asking, but does repeating the points that agree with yours make your point any more valid? It's an unusual waste of forum post, and rather annoying for those of us expecting an actual response instead of needless reposts of what other people have posted before. The posters in question have stated their points: no need for someone else to copy + paste them into a single back of "these points agree with mine" post.

Modifié par LoweGear, 13 mars 2010 - 11:34 .

[DonFredek]

no it forces you to collect and aim more precisely,react better but it has nothing to do with tactic and strategic thinking.it is just repulsive seraching and button pushing.what for?

LoweGear wrote...

Kileyan wrote...

It doesn't work in ME2. You have a couple of classes that are t-totally designed around using a single weapons as their class focus. Forcing them to switch weapons might even be cool if they had a choice of every weapon, but they don't. Forcing weapon switches with both of those classes doesn't equal variety, it equals use the SMG a whole lot, then use the SMG some more. There is no variety, it comes down to use the gun with the most bullets.

ME2's classes are not focused around using the weapons they have for their class - classes are differentiated more by what abilities they have, with weapons second. Note that the three classes with no special weapon training - Adept, Sentinel and Engineer - all have the largest collection of long range offensive powers and abilities that do not rely on their weapons at all. These "caster" classes use their guns more to strip off enemy defenses than to kill anyway, and even the much maligned ME2 Adept with its supposedly "nerfed" biotic powers can destroy enemies without me having to fire a single shot (I love the pull/singularity + warp combo).

Also, weapon changing in FPS games like FEAR was essential because your weapons are specialized towards different types of enemies and combat situations: Sure I can kill a Heavy with my pistol, but I would get better ammo mileage using the Triple Rocket Launcher or Plasma Gun.

They simply applied the same system in ME2 and made it work: Different weapons have differing effectiveness against various enemy defenses. Sure the Tempest SMG has more ammo, but it wouldn't really deal much damage against an armored enemy like a Psion, whom you can dump your entire SMG ammo reserve on and not do much damage on levels above Hardcore (tip: Forget about using SMG's against Psions on Insanity unless you have absolutely no choice). And yet players will be able to do more damage against Psions with Heavy Pistols, combined with your character skills. So yes, the system does encourage variety due to the nature of the game's enemy defense system.

Another thing... I don't get where people are coming from stating that the inclusion of the ammo system "dumbs down" the game. The Ammo System combined with the armor/shield/barrier system introduces a tangible LIMIT that forces a player to maximize the use of his weapons based on the tactical situation in order to conserve ammo. It might force the weapon to do manual tasks like reload ammo (weapons in ME2 don't automatically reload unless you press the reload or fire button) or scour for ammo - but then, these are far more that you need to do with the ammo system than the overheat system, where you either changed weapons or just stayed in cover and waited for the weapon to cool down. Also, in many FPS games the overheat mechanic was used to balance out powerful weapons that would've given the players an unfair advantage in combat, like vehicle or wall-mounted HMG's. And guess what? In FPS games players are only given overheating weapons with unlimited ammo as a tactical reward, not as a mainstream gameplay mechanic since in the first place having infinite ammunition is more or less tantamount to cheating.

I will admit to the ammo system being sketchy lore-wise even with the Codex entry on the matter, but as a gameplay mechanic the ammo system is hardly "dumbed-down" at all, and adds much more depth to the gunplay of ME2 instead of the "run and gun" style combat that you can do in ME1.

[DonFredek]

i thought i would dumb down a lil.:?i mean what i mostly read is i like it cause i like.and when someone comes up with an argument or at least tries to he deserves some praise.in my opinion you know

LoweGear wrote...

@Don Fredek:

Pardon me for asking, but does repeating the points that agree with yours make your point any more valid? It's an unusual waste of forum post, and rather annoying for those of us expecting an actual response instead of needless reposts of what other people have posted before. The posters in question have stated their points: no need for someone else to copy + paste them into a single back of "these points agree with mine" post.

[DonFredek]

why do have games be created the same way.if dvelopers can copy and paste i can too.

[LoweGear]

DonFredek wrote...

no it forces you to collect and aim more precisely,react better but it has nothing to do with tactic and strategic thinking.it is just repulsive seraching and button pushing.what for?

I would consider myself a veteran FPS gamer sure, but I would not consider myself the best FPS gamer ever: my aim times and reaction times are slow compared to many other FPS players I've fought against in many other FPS games (you know you suck when you have a streak of like 10-50 in their favor in games like Counterstrike)

Mass Effect 2 doesn't even need you to be precise with your aim unless you're an infiltrator or a soldier, which are classes centered around their weapons. All the other classes have special powers that you don't even need to take direct aim at for them to hit: I can watch as my Heavy Warp goes around a wall and hit someone behind without me having to have millimeter aim.

Also, tell me what was tactical or strategic about the old overheat system? If you're someone who can conserve the overheat system by firing in short bursts, you can basically get unlimited ammo out of your weapons - and this is before the application of the Frictionless Materials upgrade. I do not need tactics or strategy when I can stay in one position, activate Immunity and just press my finger on the trigger to blast away at any incoming enemy until I exhaust the room of all visible enemies. 

Modifié par LoweGear, 13 mars 2010 - 11:44 .

[DonFredek]

i never stated the me1 combat system was very tactical.but firing short bursts is closer to it than searching for clips.the old combat was too easy eventhough i may not be very good at shooters.but there are much more creative ways to enhance development and make it more tactical.i mean we have superpowers like you said and soldiers with this kind of technology cant jump 5-10 or even 20 metres high with these kind of suites .nanotechnology will make it possible this century.soldiers in the next 20 or so year will be stronger and faster,they are now using exoskelets that allow you to carry even 100 kg uphill.we are talking about a universe that has a lot of races and yes it is fictional and has many illogical glitches.but why not give us better shields,make the ai smarter(it is a lil bit better than me1) give you combat drones ,give you scout drones so you have tos scan the territory(but when you are limited you have to make choices where to use it and how).if you have to amke ammo and weapon choices focus on going through diffrent types of shields.make them last longer.already in this century fighting is more about preparing and knowing your enemy than about shooting.but dont you thing that if anyone(so amny corporations,fractions,diffrent races and galaxies and diffrent technologies some of which allow you to use a technology that does no require changing ammo)-dont you think someone would make a system that gives you even the slightets edge over your opponent?i mean tehy all just agreed that suddenly thermo clips are the way to go.sure why not.as i said lets go crossbows.that would be far more realistic and would require tactical and strategical skills.i amperfectly fine with fiction and fantasy but some logic hast to be given and continuity in thinking and technology development that resemlbes soemthint like a reason.but why suddenly tell the palyer that the universe regressed technlogically to warl war one times?

LoweGear wrote...

DonFredek wrote...

no it forces you to collect and aim more precisely,react better but it has nothing to do with tactic and strategic thinking.it is just repulsive seraching and button pushing.what for?

I would consider myself a veteran FPS gamer sure, but I would not consider myself the best FPS gamer ever: my aim times and reaction times are slow compared to many other FPS players I've fought against in many other FPS games (you know you suck when you have a streak of like 10-50 in their favor in games like Counterstrike)

Mass Effect 2 doesn't even need you to be precise with your aim unless you're an infiltrator or a soldier, which are classes centered around their weapons. All the other classes have special powers that you don't even need to take direct aim at for them to hit: I can watch as my Heavy Warp goes around a wall and hit someone behind without me having to have millimeter aim.

Also, tell me what was tactical or strategic about the old overheat system? If you're someone who can conserve the overheat system by firing in short bursts, you can basically get unlimited ammo out of your weapons - and this is before the application of the Frictionless Materials upgrade. I do not need tactics or strategy when I can stay in one position, activate Immunity and just press my finger on the trigger to blast away at any incoming enemy until I exhaust the room of all visible enemies. 

[LoweGear]

DonFredek wrote...

i never stated the me1 combat system was very tactical.but firing short bursts is closer to it than searching for clips.

Firing in bursts is even more essential in ME2 though, because you want to make every shot count due to the limit of your ammo, and you can only ensure the accuracy necessary to make each bullet hit the target by firing in short, trigger-controlled bursts instead of spraying the target - unless you're fighting a very large target, like a Geth Colossus. This is because unlike in ME1, weapons now have visible recoil, hence firing in continuous full-auto fire will result in lots of errant shots.

[Will not reply to rest of your post, due to it being a lore/presentation issue rather than a gameplay issue]

Modifié par LoweGear, 13 mars 2010 - 12:10 .

[DonFredek]

ok,you are obviously the gameplay response type of person.i respect that but did not know such a species existed.word.unbelievable how much surprises the galaxy has.i learned so much because of mass effect.thx.

LoweGear wrote...

DonFredek wrote...

i never stated the me1 combat system was very tactical.but firing short bursts is closer to it than searching for clips.

Firing in bursts is even more essential in ME2 though, because you want to make every shot count due to the limit of your ammo, and you can only ensure the accuracy necessary to make each bullet hit the target by firing in short, trigger-controlled bursts instead of spraying the target - unless you're fighting a very large target, like a Geth Colossus.

[Will not reply to rest of your post, due to it being a lore/presentation issue rather than a gameplay issue]

[DonFredek]

by the way creating a universe that is at elast somewaht believable and creating a feeling of being involved with the universe a nd character is essential to mass effect.at elast thats what the developers said.otherwise i can play any random shooter game.but obviously i am wrong.people want trophies ,straight forward action with lil brain powers involvement and thats it.they want what they know and thats why industry creates generic copies of games and does not stop.beacause people want it.mass effect was shining light that something new was on the horizon but they just went with heavy celebrity voice acting and graphics and now stupd thing are forcedon me(read my previous posts i named many besides the ammo stuff and gave even some solutions.mostly others on this forum did it better than me so bioware has some people taht care to listen to.)i dont care much for codex but for somekind of logic.thx ea for 10 years of gameplay stagnation and creativity wiped out of this industry.boycott ea.free bioware.

Modifié par DonFredek, 13 mars 2010 - 12:16 .

[LoweGear]

I just suddenly remembered a story I heard regarding ammunition capacity in the real world, if you want to talk about it:



My brother was a 1st Lieutenant in the Philippine Army, deployed in Mindanao to fight off Abu Sayyaf and MILF insurgents there. He liked to lecture about the "lack of ammo" that he and his men had to go through due to the incompetence of the higher ups in providing much needed supplies. Note that this was jungle warfare, where they had to spend weeks trudging through harsh fauna and mountainous terrain.



The numbers he gave was that when well stocked, each of them would have about 10 clips of ammo for their M16's, which would be 30 rounds each, giving them a total of 300 rounds, and that going over that amount would make them unnecessarily heavy. Do note however that due to above logistical reasons they were often undersupplied, and more often carried only half of the intended amount.



Now to think about the Mass Effect 2 numbers... your Avenger Assault Rifle had 40 rounds per thermal clip, with 9 reserve clips for a total of over 400 rounds. This is way more ammunition than my brother would have in the real world! And not to mention that a Soldier-class in Mass Effect would also carry a pistol, a sniper rifle and a shotgun, each with their own reserve clips. Your average Mass Effect 2 soldier already has more ammunition on him, and without much weight penalties too!



Something to think about...

[Selvec_Darkon]

Ejecting Headsinks ha?



Time to switch to Water Cooling xD.

Modifié par Selvec_Darkon, 13 mars 2010 - 12:22 .

[tempAE0F]

To the OP:

Learn to use the system. I have no problems using either system.

Modifié par tempAE0F, 13 mars 2010 - 12:24 .

[LoweGear]

DonFredek wrote...

ok,you are obviously the gameplay response type of person.i respect that but did not know such a species existed.word.unbelievable how much surprises the galaxy has.i learned so much because of mass effect.thx.

I am uncertain about whether you were sarcastic or not, however I did not want to waste having to justify the rest of your post because the gripes you outlined for that post were lore and presentation issues not related to the implementation of the ammo system itself, which is a gameplay issue. Hence my arguments will focus on why the ammo system is not a "dumbed down" system from the original Mass Effect overheat system, and not on the tangentially inconsequential matter of how the ammo system fits into the lore of the verse.

[DonFredek]

it is sad enough soldiers arent properly equipped.russians send 10 soldiers into combat in ww2.4 or 5 had any kind of weapons and not talking about ammo.retreat was not an option cause they would be shot by their own people.but is this the way it should be?doing something just beacuase of  we did it before?it is a fictional universe with diffrent technology in the FUTURE.so what that most soldiers dont have to shoot one single shot during their tenure.we are talkin about a specialist on suicide mission or whatever backed up by a corporation that sepcializez in technology enhacement.we can allegedly create singularity but cant make weapons that dont overheat.heh?i am tired of explaining it to people that are defending tha indefensible just becuase they think they have a point.i accept that someone like to play it this way.but why cant i a t least choose the way i play.why are so many things forced on me in me2 when i had more freedom of choice in me1.i did not state nor will i that one was great.it had many weaknesses.but they could have been addressed in a million ways but the chose the dumbest and the y even try to explain it with a lame lore.i dont care what they write.NO SENSE AT ALL:NOT NECESSERRY:NO REASON for scratching the wypoints and many other lil decisions in this game.thats why i call it a dumbed down console game.

LoweGear wrote...

I just suddenly remembered a story I heard regarding ammunition capacity in the real world, if you want to talk about it:

My brother was a 1st Lieutenant in the Philippine Army, deployed in Mindanao to fight off Abu Sayyaf and MILF insurgents there. He liked to lecture about the "lack of ammo" that he and his men had to go through due to the incompetence of the higher ups in providing much needed supplies. Note that this was jungle warfare, where they had to spend weeks trudging through harsh fauna and mountainous terrain.

The numbers he gave was that when well stocked, each of them would have about 10 clips of ammo for their M16's, which would be 30 rounds each, giving them a total of 300 rounds, and that going over that amount would make them unnecessarily heavy. Do note however that due to above logistical reasons they were often undersupplied, and more often carried only half of the intended amount.

Now to think about the Mass Effect 2 numbers... your Avenger Assault Rifle had 40 rounds per thermal clip, with 9 reserve clips for a total of over 400 rounds. This is way more ammunition than my brother would have in the real world! And not to mention that a Soldier-class in Mass Effect would also carry a pistol, a sniper rifle and a shotgun, each with their own reserve clips. Your average Mass Effect 2 soldier already has more ammunition on him, and without much weight penalties too!

Something to think about...

[DonFredek]

this game not others.concentrate.are you here?concentrate young jedi.

Maviarab wrote...

yeah...and its not like you have to reload ammo in any other game is it?

[DonFredek]

what is there to learn.it is still not very difficult.thats not what the post is about.concnetrate.read,understand and then respond.things have to be done in an specific order,sometimes not alwys.thats one of the moments.

tempAE0F wrote...

To the OP:

Learn to use the system. I have no problems using either system.

[DarthKaldriss]

Dethateer wrote...

Yes. The Reapers will be defeated by a Daemon Power Sword inhabited by Nurgle.

Non sense Warscythes and guass wpns will defeat the reapers. 

[DonFredek]

one has to do with the other in this kind of games.you are the one who is focusing on jsut one aspect and i explained several tiems why i thought that gameplay wise it is not a very smart decision for THIS KIND OF AGME:

LoweGear wrote...

DonFredek wrote...

ok,you are obviously the gameplay response type of person.i respect that but did not know such a species existed.word.unbelievable how much surprises the galaxy has.i learned so much because of mass effect.thx.

I am uncertain about whether you were sarcastic or not, however I did not want to waste having to justify the rest of your post because the gripes you outlined for that post were lore and presentation issues not related to the implementation of the ammo system itself, which is a gameplay issue. Hence my arguments will focus on why the ammo system is not a "dumbed down" system from the original Mass Effect overheat system, and not on the tangentially inconsequential matter of how the ammo system fits into the lore of the verse.

[Selvec_Darkon]

I liked the old method. Mostly because collecting Ammo is just so generic shooter. If biowares trying to create something new, they should stray away from something that is so classically generic as collecting ammo. That kind of classic gameplay inclusion forces a game from being a 50/50 RPG/Shooter to something like 30/70. A more shooter based system.



classsic Generic gameplay elements do that.

[DonFredek]

slowly i develop the feeling that the art of argumentation and discussion is limited to correct ortography and building nice sounding sentences that resemble arguments (mimcri anyone)?

[slyguy07]

DarthCaine wrote...

Ammo is stupid. Mass Effect 2 is the only game that uses it

Ammo 200 years from now with alien tech to boost our own? Yeah it's lame. There should be an advanced power source to fire the small pinhead sized piece of metal that a laser cuts from the metal block inside each weapon. 4000 rounds per weapon. Heatsinks were a lame excuse.

[slyguy07]

LoweGear wrote...

DonFredek wrote...

ok,you are obviously the gameplay response type of person.i respect that but did not know such a species existed.word.unbelievable how much surprises the galaxy has.i learned so much because of mass effect.thx.

I am uncertain about whether you were sarcastic or not, however I did not want to waste having to justify the rest of your post because the gripes you outlined for that post were lore and presentation issues not related to the implementation of the ammo system itself, which is a gameplay issue. Hence my arguments will focus on why the ammo system is not a "dumbed down" system from the original Mass Effect overheat system, and not on the tangentially inconsequential matter of how the ammo system fits into the lore of the verse.

It is consequential as it hinders immersion which is imperative in an RPG.

[Doctor Deepthroat]

Actually, I think it's one of the many big improvements over ME1. I hated the over-heat guns from the first game. Mine always seemed to over-heat way too fast.

[LoweGear]

slyguy07 wrote...

It is consequential as it hinders immersion which is imperative in an RPG.

I don't know... I was still totally immersed in Mass Effect 2's story despite the new thermal clip lore. Point is, as far as the argument concerning the ammo system's practicality and usage goes, the lore itself is inconsequential to the argument. Would changing the lore make the ammo system any more practical or useful? Of course not. You would still have only 10 shots for your sniper rifle regardless of whether I write the lore to claim the Geth created thermal clips or the Reapers did, or some God descended from heaven and made it so. Also, as a story element the thermal clips are but a periphery, which hardly changes anything in the overall plot of the Mass Effect universe. One can go an entire game and not even think about why on earth you're using thermal clips unless one is that anal about it.

Lore and Gameplay are interrelated only up to a point - when the gameplay parts take over, the gameplay rules take precedence over anything lore has to say. In lore cutscenes, Shepard and team can take down Krogans with only a few shots from Heavy Pistols (see Garrus' loyalty mission), while Miranda can use lift and throw with nary a cooldown against a defended Asari (see her loyalty mission) and yet in gameplay you need a variety of powers and weapons just to take down a single Krogan or use biotic powers on said Asari; or for an ME1 example, Jenkins getting cut down by Geth Drones in seconds while you as Shepard can tank them easily. Lore is useful for telling a story yes, but it should never come at the expense of gameplay - applying lore to gameplay too strictly would result in an unbalanced and frustrating game.

Modifié par LoweGear, 14 mars 2010 - 12:34 .