874 réponses à ce sujet

[WillieStyle]

NewMessageN00b wrote...
And, indeed. If I wanted a great shooter, I'd go squish my brains against the keyboard in Call of Duty. But it will last... like what? 3 days... max?

This is a poor - but sadly common - argument.
ME2 has shooting in it.  Bioware tried to improve the shooting mechanics.
Saying "if I wanted a great shooter, I'd play X" makes no sense. What is the arguement? That Bioware should abstain from implementing great shooter mechanics in ME2 because pure shooters exist? Illogical.
If you have specific objections to the gameplay mechanics then by all means let them be known.  
But, if I were a Bioware developer, I would consider complaints that ME2's shooter mechanics are too similar to the mechanics of extremely popular shooters praise not criticisms.

Before ME2, if I wanted a great shooter, I'd play MW2 for a week.  Now, if I want a great shooter,  I can play ME2 for months. What's not to love?

[Tasker]

slimgrin wrote...

Orkboy wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Its encouraging to see that Christina has read some of this stuff and responded as well.

Question is though, will she do anything about it?

Afterall, she's already basically told us to get stuffed over the helmet issue.

If you mean toggling helmets? come on...thats trivial compared to the other issues that have come up.

Exactly...

If they can't be arsed fixing something so trivial when it has most people up in arms, what hope do we have for anything else being put right?

[Cross1280]

I find it Ironic that alot of people on these forums feel that the ammo system break immersion, I will agree on the lore part, but I always find it gamebreaking in a alot of RPG's that when my bow runs out of arrows, i keep magically pulling arrows out of my ass and still keep shooting it, you can see this in DA:O you have arrows but you do not need to equip them as your bow never runs out of ammo.

They could have made it alot worse and did the same thing they did in RE5 and made your squadmates use up ammo also so when they run out they just sit there doing nothing, but saying Shepard i need ammo.

editted for typos

Modifié par Cross1280, 14 mars 2010 - 10:28 .

[CatatonicMan]

LoweGear wrote...

5) Disagrees with the logic of the lore behind thermal clips

Isn't that how it was implemented though? All your weapons use the same thermal clips, and all your weapons can use them regardless of type. This is different from most other shooters where you had different ammo types for different weapons, ex. needing to find pistol ammo for pistols, or rifle ammo for assault rifles etc...

They implemented the 'universal' clips in name only; the logical mechanic didn't actually carry over into the game. 

While all the ammo is indeed the same, each weapon has its own independent stockpile. If the thermal clip system was properly designed, it would not be possible to run out of ammo for one gun and still have ammo for any of the others. 

LoweGear wrote...

Stated problem is a lore issue, not a gameplay one; had they added the overheating weapons to the game, it would've broken the entire mechanic in the first place - i.e. why use the weapons that would potentially run out when I have a weapon that never runs out? It would discourage variety in the use of weapons.

It is a lore issue, sure, but only because they decided to go the easy route of refactoring the lore rather than making the weapon system work inside the framework they already had.

Since thermal clips are supposed to be 'better', it shouldn't matter if they allowed the old weapons back in. The fact that it would break the game should at least indicate that they did something wrong.

LoweGear wrote...

Would it have been better had all the ammo been taken from a universal pool, and then finding out that you no longer have any ammo for your weapons simply because you wasted it on a single one? I suppose I could appreciate the extra challenge, similar to how power cells for heavy weapons are shared between HW types...

But that's part of the problem - there should have been one single ammo pool for all the weapons. The current system makes no sense at all. If you assembled the approximate number of thermal clips you carry for each weapon into one big pool, you would likely never run out of ammo for any given gun. As a bonus, you wouldn't be shoehorned into using different weapons when you shouldn't logically need to.

LoweGear wrote...

It's shady in lore maybe. But as a gameplay mechanic, there's nothing really wrong with how the ammo system was implemented (i.e. it wasn't broken, and it wasn't buggy), given that it's one of the more successful formulas in FPS and TPS that's simply been given to ME2.

I can agree with that at least - the ammo system is mostly functional. It may be nonsensical, illogical, immersion-breaking, and lore abusing, but it does 'work' from a pure game-mechanic viewpoint. If having it competent in this way is all you need, then you have it made.

Still, working in one sense (even perhaps the most important) doesn't excuse all the other things wrong with the thermal clips, though, especially when it only takes a bit more effort to make it work in every other way as well.

Modifié par CatatonicMan, 14 mars 2010 - 10:30 .

[A Fhaol Bhig]

I think it works alot better than unlimited ammo, I had fun with unlimited ammo becaue it was the first time I'd gotten to mess around with unlimited ammo without cheating, but I prefer clips because it feels more balanced.





I just wish Snipers and pistols could hold more ammo.

[cityhunter357]

slimgrin wrote...

Cityhunter35, were not getting exploration in ME3. Too many people don't want that. It takes patience to roam about big spaces, and the demographic attracted to this latest iteration of ME want something closer to corridor level design.

Man, the next generation and all this tech are useless if people prefer corridors from 32bit era instead of some deeper universe/areas/possibilities etc.

Mass Effect has a lot of potential, it's very sad they are driving it in the wrong way toward the simple "TPS on corridors" formula just to appeal people who didn't liked ME1
Hope Bioware will stick to the original Mass effect idea for ME3, and give us back the exploration, elevators, RPG and more.

[-Skorpious-]

Why do so many of you want to take the most praised aspect of ME:2 and return to a less preferable system? They changed the shooter mechanics for a reason - a large percentage of fans/reviewers complained about the lackluster combat. Bioware simply improved a criticized aspect of ME:1.

Besides, continuously spamming bullets without repercussion leads to dull, easy, and often broken fights; having limited ammo forces you to use other weapons, fight in a more tactical manner, ect. Perhaps as a shooter fan I tend to have an easier time embracing this sort of change in gameplay, while hardcore RPG'ers lament over broken lore.

I love Mass Effect for it's incredible story, but I am willing to forgive a minor lore inconsistency if it leads to a better gameplay experience.

cityhunter357 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Cityhunter35, were not getting exploration in ME3. Too many people don't want that. It takes patience to roam about big spaces, and the demographic attracted to this latest iteration of ME want something closer to corridor level design.

Man, the next generation and all this tech are useless if people prefer corridors from 32bit era instead of some deeper universe/areas/possibilities etc.

Mass Effect has a lot of potential, it's very sad they are driving it in the wrong way toward the simple "TPS on corridors" formula just to appeal people who didn't liked ME1
Hope Bioware will stick to the original Mass effect idea for ME3, and give us back the exploration, elevators, RPG and more.

*looks at sig* Definitely agree with you 100%. More explorable/open-ended environments for ME:3 please Bioware!

Modifié par -Skorpious-, 14 mars 2010 - 11:48 .

[cityhunter357]

Need also a "support drivable normandy in 3D space" ^^

[CatatonicMan]

-Skorpious- wrote...

Why do so many of you want to take the most praised aspect of ME:2 and return to a less preferable system? They changed the shooter mechanics for a reason - a large percentage of fans/reviewers complained about the lackluster combat. Bioware simply improved a criticized aspect of ME:1.

Besides, continuously spamming bullets without repercussion leads to dull, easy, and often broken fights; having limited ammo forces you to use other weapons, fight in a more tactical manner, ect. Perhaps as a shooter fan I tend to have an easier time embracing this sort of change in gameplay, while hardcore RPG'ers lament over broken lore.

I love Mass Effect for it's incredible story, but I am willing to forgive a minor lore inconsistency if it leads to a better gameplay experience.

As a point of clarification, I'd like to point out that Bioware didn't 'improve' the inventory system or the ammo system - they tossed them into the incinerator and started from scratch.

Regardless, my main issue is not over which system is better (which is largely a matter of taste), but rather that they implemented the new system with only gameplay in mind - without regard for logic, sense, immersion, or lore.

They could have made a system that worked well in combat, that meshed well with the established lore, and that made actual physical sense, but they didn't. They threw out some half-baked near-retcon abut thermal clips and went on their merry way.

Lore and immersion are  just about as important as gameplay. The fact that Bioware doesn't seem to care enough to even attempt to reconcile the two is depressing.

Modifié par CatatonicMan, 14 mars 2010 - 11:59 .

[Pocketgb]

CatatonicMan wrote...

LoweGear wrote...

It's only a fiasco only if the ammo system was so utterly broken that the gameplay objectively failed because of it. However, given that the ammo system as it was implemented in ME2 is similar to the way most FPS and TPS shooters do it (simplified even, since you only have a single type of thermal clip for every weapon), and that said system has met with much success in all of those titles, along with said system having met no bugs or problems in actual implementation, the "failure" of the ammo system is more of an opinion of those who don't like it than an actual gameplay issue, simply because it was a change from the previous system used in Mass Effect 1.

As it is implemented, there really is nothing wrong with the ammo system, and most of the complaints are either due to players who:

1. Got used to the Mass Effect 1 overheat system
2. Don't like having to scrounge for ammo
3. Don't like having to manage ammo count
4. Claim the ammo system is a "dumbed down" system from the overheat system

1) is somewhat understandable, if irrational.
2) is slightly understandable in the least, but given the position of enemies in the game and the amount of ammo spawn points I don't see how this is a problem at all
3) is for those who use weapons without much regard for fire discipline or tactics, and hence end up using more ammo than they need to kill an enemy. It's not a problem of the ammo system then, but of the player's skills - the limitation is there as a challenge afterall
4) Given the amount of work needed for the ammo system compared to the overheat system, I fail to see how this can be a point at all

The ammo system is equally loved and equally hated it seems by everyone who visits these forums, but to call it a "fiasco" just because of the posts that hate it is truly unfair, especially since these forums are not indicative of the actual majority/minority opinion of ALL the players who've played Mass Effect 2, but simply the opinions of the individuals who do post here on the forums.

The ammo system is, as far as I am concerned, simply idiotic.

It could have been good, but they implemented it so badly that I have not one scrap of respect for the system.

By their own lore (that they decided to clumsily alter), there should have been a universal pool of heat clips that all weapons drew from. There wasn't.

The weapons should have been able to cool down if left alone giving an infinite (if slow) ammo supply. Didn't happen.

There should have been swappable weapon mods that worked with the heat clips and ammo system. Nope, too complicated.

There should have been weapons available that didn't use the heat clips (obviously, because they were there before). Can't do that, though; it would make too much sense.

Hell, they didn't even allow you to add all the picked up ammo to your current weapon - a blatant mechanic designed to 'encourage' the use of different weapons. 

They designed the ammo system to force players to use different weapons, and they implemented it in such a way that it was blatantly obvious what they intended - against all logic, reason, and canon.

They could have made an ammo system that worked and made sense; they didn't.

They should've honestly just went ahead and said that all guns use ammo because it's much more effective and deadly. This would've made more sense in the carry-over because you die much, much more quickly now than you ever did in ME1.

In regards to how it functions gameplay wise, I love it. If you're not wise about what you use on which enemy - i.e. wasting high-damaging sniper rounds on the lowest ranked enemies - then you will have problems. But this disapate when you better knowledge yourself on which encounter requires which weapon, which enemy it's most effective on, and etc.

I would agree with having a cooldown timer if you're out of ammo to reset it, but only if it's either A. a rather long wait (let's say 10 minutes or so?) or cover wasn't as OP and broken as it is now (more enemies need to be as threatening as Harbinger).

As a sidenote: does anyone remember how many ammo references they made in ME1? I remember Wrex telling a story and he mentions running out of ammo. Were there any other instances like that?

Modifié par Pocketgb, 15 mars 2010 - 12:02 .

[slyguy07]

CatatonicMan wrote...

WillieStyle wrote...

Gameplay ALWAYS trumps lore.
If your goal is to convince Bioware developers to do away with ammo and return to the overheat mechanism of ME1, then I suggest you come up with gameplay reasons for such a change. Crying about "lore" and "immersion" will get you absolutely nowhere.

Hmm, considering that I don't want such a change to happen, perhaps I shouldn't have posted this.

Gameplay (or rather, fun) should indeed always trump lore - but only if there is no other choice that satisfies both.

In this case, Bioware looked at the first part, but forgot the second.

Exactly

[slyguy07]

scyphozoa wrote...

slyguy07 wrote...

scyphozoa wrote...

WillieStyle wrote...

Gameplay ALWAYS trumps lore.

lol, /signed

Really? Seeing as they almost didn't implement the thermal clip system and that possibly being one of them.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/103/index/1707043

Really what? I absolutely support the "Gameplay Always trumps lore" line. This doesn't mean I don't value a good story, character depth and verisimilitude of small details.

I do like the new ammo mechanic in ME2 and I think it is successful in adding depth to shooter combat. As someone who plays sentinels primarily in ME2, I have to switch between SMG and HP frequently, and every bullet has to count to survive on insanity.

I loved ME1 and I would replay it constantly, but the combat was extremely boring. One popular way I would play ME1 would be turning the difficulty to casual and literally sprinting through all combat and driving through all mako combat sequences. I wouldn't even fire shots at enemies except those that needed to die to progress in the map/mission.
The story of ME2 is excellent and the difference is now I get to replay the game and actually enjoy and indulge the shooting, rather than begrudge it for getting in my way.

"I will inflict upon ME1's combat system the greatest insult an enemy can suffer, to be ignored!"

See that's the problem for some of us. We hate how much it feels like a shooter now although I do like some parts of the combat better there is others that I despise. Gameplay may always trump lore, but they implemented thermal clips at the last second from what I understand and made a crappy excuse to back it up. That's the thing though - many people doesn't think it would ruin the gameplay like you and willie keep saying. To sum it up here is what you basically are saying:

Ammo makes you more conservative and careful in how you use your weapons.

Nobody is arguing that. It also means you can run out of ammo. I'm sorry, but throw in the lore factor again and I just can't get over that with there being 4000 rounds per weapon. What I don't understand is why they can't just satisfy both sides because with the hybrid system.

If you were to overheat your weapon say you couldn't use it for X number of seconds or as some people suggested thermal clips would be used only once a weapon actually is overheated and much more valuable and harder to come by. In essence it would be similar to running out of ammo. Either way you have to be careful and it wouldn't harm the pacing.

For the record two of you should be less condescending. Your opinion is no better than anyone else's. But I digress. My mind will not be changed on this and neither will yours. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Pocketgb]

Arguably:

ME1: Great lore, decent gameplay
ME2: Great gameplay, decent lore
ME3: Great lore and great gameplay, or decent lore and gameplay? We decide!

slyguy07 wrote...

Nobody
is arguing that. It also means you can run out of ammo. I'm sorry, but
throw in the lore factor again and I just can't get over that with
there being 4000 rounds per weapon. What I don't understand is why they
can't just satisfy both sides because with the hybrid system.

Because of weapon balance.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 15 mars 2010 - 12:22 .

[-Skorpious-]

CatatonicMan wrote...

-Skorpious- wrote...

Why do so many of you want to take the most praised aspect of ME:2 and return to a less preferable system? They changed the shooter mechanics for a reason - a large percentage of fans/reviewers complained about the lackluster combat. Bioware simply improved a criticized aspect of ME:1.

Besides, continuously spamming bullets without repercussion leads to dull, easy, and often broken fights; having limited ammo forces you to use other weapons, fight in a more tactical manner, ect. Perhaps as a shooter fan I tend to have an easier time embracing this sort of change in gameplay, while hardcore RPG'ers lament over broken lore.

I love Mass Effect for it's incredible story, but I am willing to forgive a minor lore inconsistency if it leads to a better gameplay experience.

As a point of clarification, I'd like to point out that Bioware didn't 'improve' the inventory system or the ammo system - they tossed them into the incinerator and started from scratch.

Regardless, my main issue is not over which system is better (which is largely a matter of taste), but rather that they implemented the new system with only gameplay in mind - without regard for logic, sense, immersion, or lore.

They could have made a system that worked well in combat, that meshed well with the established lore, and that made actual physical sense, but they didn't. They threw out some half-baked near-retcon abut thermal clips and went on their merry way.

Lore and immersion are  just about as important as gameplay. The fact that Bioware doesn't seem to care enough to even attempt to reconcile the two is depressing.

I agree halfway. Kinda. I also value lore and immersion, but can tolerate certain changes depending on how it effects the games established universe. If Bioware claimed for ME:3 the Asari were the third species to discover the Citadel, then yes, I would nerd-rage. That is an example of a serious lore discrepancy.

Now the ammo situation is in a different category. The overall universe remains intact by incorporating heat-sinks into lore; the only change it brings is a new way to fight small-arms warfare. I am willing to forgive such minor inconsistencies as long as the overall lore remains relatively unchanged. 

[slyguy07]

Pocketgb wrote...

Arguably:

ME1: Great lore, decent gameplay
ME2: Great gameplay, decent lore
ME3: Great lore and great gameplay, or decent lore and gameplay? We decide!

slyguy07 wrote...

Nobody
is arguing that. It also means you can run out of ammo. I'm sorry, but
throw in the lore factor again and I just can't get over that with
there being 4000 rounds per weapon. What I don't understand is why they
can't just satisfy both sides because with the hybrid system.

 
Because of weapon balance.

But it wouldn't effect weapon balance if some of the hybrid suggestions are implemented! An overheated weapon would be akin to out of ammo. Maybe even worse in some suggestions as you can't find ammo on the ground to replenish it instantly.

Modifié par slyguy07, 15 mars 2010 - 12:28 .

[Pocketgb]

slyguy07 wrote...
 
But it wouldn't effect weapon balance if some of the hybrid suggestions are implemented! An overheated weapon would be akin to out of ammo. Maybe even worse in some suggestions as you can't find ammo on the ground to replenish it instantly.

Like I said earlier, if the cooldown period was rather long (i.e. five minutes) I could tolerate it. It would lower down on the "clip scavanging" that a lot of people dislike.

But the more and more that gets lowered down, the nastier things become. Ammo is mainly in place there so you can't just use the best guns all the time. I'm having a headache imagining a weapon like the Widowmaker having unlimited ammo and how much easier it would make things.

Then the problem after that is finding the perfect balance between heatsink clips and auto-cooldown on your weapons: it will get tricky because everyone plays differently, everyone had different preferances, and everyone plays different classes.

[CatatonicMan]

-Skorpious- wrote...

I agree halfway. Kinda. I also value lore and immersion, but can tolerate certain changes depending on how it effects the games established universe. If Bioware claimed for ME:3 the Asari were the third species to discover the Citadel, then yes, I would nerd-rage. That is an example of a serious lore discrepancy.

Now the ammo situation is in a different category. The overall universe remains intact by incorporating heat-sinks into lore; the only change it brings is a new way to fight small-arms warfare. I am willing to forgive such minor inconsistencies as long as the overall lore remains relatively unchanged. 

I'll admit they at least gave an excuse for the thermal clips - may have been weak, but it was at least plausible. As stupid as I think it was, I don't have control of the canon; I can grudgingly excuse this as plausible.

The thing I can't excuse is how badly they screwed the ammo in-game. If they wanted universal heat clips, they could have at least implemented them sensibly and logically - but they didn't bother.

I mean, think about it for a second:

No single pool of thermal clips? What?

Every scavenged clip going piecemeal to every weapon? Why?

Inconsistent heat capacity for 'universal' thermal clips? How?

Collectors dropping heat clips? Madness!

What made it seem like a good idea to make so many blatant inconsistencies? Is the gameplay so hard to balance that any other more reasonable approach would fail?

[slyguy07]

Pocketgb wrote...

slyguy07 wrote...
 
But it wouldn't effect weapon balance if some of the hybrid suggestions are implemented! An overheated weapon would be akin to out of ammo. Maybe even worse in some suggestions as you can't find ammo on the ground to replenish it instantly.

Like I said earlier, if the cooldown period was rather long (i.e. five minutes) I could tolerate it. It would lower down on the "clip scavanging" that a lot of people dislike.

But the more and more that gets lowered down, the nastier things become. Ammo is mainly in place there so you can't just use the best guns all the time. I'm having a headache imagining a weapon like the Widowmaker having unlimited ammo and how much easier it would make things.

Then the problem after that is finding the perfect balance between heatsink clips and auto-cooldown on your weapons: it will get tricky because everyone plays differently, everyone had different preferances, and everyone plays different classes.

That's true, but BW should take all the time in the world to make ME3 the game it should be. They have time to figure out. ME2 set the game engine for combat it's mostly a matter of power tweaking/implementation and the ammo issue.

Well then there's the whole world building story part, too. I agree with you though on the Widow - perhaps they will give each weapon a shots before overheating and cooldown period. Of course who knows what they are going to do at this juncture.

[Pocketgb]

slyguy07 wrote...

That's true, but BW should take all the time in the world to make ME3 the game it should be. They have time to figure out. ME2 set the game engine for combat it's mostly a matter of power tweaking/implementation and the ammo issue.

Mechanically, the system they have right now works fine. The only thing inconsistent about it is the lore, so I imagine this would be low on their priority list.

So what can we do to help? See if we can get it balanced accordingly, starting with a five-minute cooldown to replenish ammo when at zero.

How does it help in combat?: Only against bosses or if you're having a really hard time and have been spending all your ammo on bad guys rather poorly.
How does it help otherwise?: Scrunches down on "ammo scavanging" you experience on ocassion.

Now, let's discuss it in regards to a 1 minute cooldown.

How does it help in combat? Much more. Low ammo doesn't become a concern when you can simply switch to another weapon, take out enemies best used for it, then switch back to the one that's low.

The biggest problem here is that the two groups of players appreciates things the other dislikes: I prefer having a limited ammo supply  since it allows for a better balance of weapons and has been an integral and functioning part of gameplay since Doom. People who like the system in ME1 appreciated it because it was different and a bit innovative and preferred not having a limited ammo supply.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 15 mars 2010 - 12:57 .

[Koralis]

CatatonicMan wrote...

I'll admit they at least gave an excuse for the thermal clips - may have been weak, but it was at least plausible. As stupid as I think it was, I don't have control of the canon; I can grudgingly excuse this as plausible.

The thing I can't excuse is how badly they screwed the ammo in-game. If they wanted universal heat clips, they could have at least implemented them sensibly and logically - but they didn't bother.

I mean, think about it for a second:

No single pool of thermal clips? What?

Every scavenged clip going piecemeal to every weapon? Why?

Inconsistent heat capacity for 'universal' thermal clips? How?

Collectors dropping heat clips? Madness!

What made it seem like a good idea to make so many blatant inconsistencies? Is the gameplay so hard to balance that any other more reasonable approach would fail?

You misunderstand the heat clips. 

1)  There are Heat Clips already installed in all of your guns, with varying capacity left
2)  There are spare Heat Clips on your belt (or whereever.)

When you look at your shot capacity, that's Number of Shots in your Weapon + Number of shots for that weapon if you used all of your spare heat clips on that weapon.   Proof?  Reloading one weapon causes the number of shots for other weapons to decrease.  Until you reload the numbers stay constant for other weapons (though it decreases for the one that you're firing.)


Re: Inconsistant capacity.

Weapons put out different amount of Heat Per Shot.   A single Sniper Rifle shot will fill up a heat clip.  It can take 40+ assault rifle shots to fill up a heat clip. 

[Dudeman315]

All having a limited ammo supply did for me is slow combat way down. Every fight became save ammo for Hard enemies/Charging enemies while using Incinerate on everything. Seriously they could have just removed weapons all together cause use incinerate, wait, incinerate is all you need. Love ME1, would have rented ME2 if I knew how different it would be from ME1.



I just really want an answer to this question before I buy ME3:

Where on this scale does ME3 fit?



DA:O- - - - - ME1 - - ME2 - -MW2



Where:

DA:O=Dragon Age: Origins

ME= Mass Effect

MW= Modern Warfare

[TornadoADV]

The Thermal Clip issue is extremely funny. You ask any military man in the field what he would prefer, a weapon with unlimited ammo that still overheats like it does now or you keep your current weapon.



If you choose b, you are not only a moron but lying to yourself.