Lore must take a back seat to that which makes for better gameplay.
Yeah, no.
Especially something as ambiguous as this that could have been mitigated with original decisions and balancing of the original idea, but we need the Modern Warfare 2 crowd to buy our game, so bring on the ammo magazines.
Allright, you're stretching. Like a lot.
Please explain simply how a: Having limited ammunition attracts the "Modern Warfare 2 crowd", b: How overheating would balance out the Heavy Pistol v. the Hand Cannon, and c: how overheating would force you to use any weapon other than one specific strong weapon the entire course.
Because that is straight up silly goose, yo.
Are you actually postulating that there is a type of person who is thinking "God, Everything about Mass Effect 2 looks awesome, but fuck I have unlimited ammunition? FUCK THAT GAME"?
Lore must take a back seat to that which makes for better gameplay.
Yeah, no.
Especially something as ambiguous as this that could have been mitigated with original decisions and balancing of the original idea, but we need the Modern Warfare 2 crowd to buy our game, so bring on the ammo magazines.
Ah of course. When in doubt "teh pubbies r ruinin' our deep gaemz!"
Is it truly that mindbending to consider the possibility that Bioware simply felt it made for better pacing and gameplay? And decided that was more important than some throwaway lines in the Codex?
Lore must take a back seat to that which makes for better gameplay.
Yeah, no.
Especially something as ambiguous as this that could have been mitigated with original decisions and balancing of the original idea, but we need the Modern Warfare 2 crowd to buy our game, so bring on the ammo magazines.
Uhh yes. Bad design should be killed, lore be damned. The overheat system sucked. It was stupid when My sniper rifle would overheat every shot and it was stupid when my assault rifle could fire forever. I like the resource management aspect of ammo, from making sure I've got enough to timing reloads. I also like that it forces me to switch my weapons around, unlike the first game. I don't like that you can't fire your guns when you are out of ammo and use the overheat system from the first one, but frankly, I can't imagine that hybridizing the 2 wouldn't make sniper rifles even more overpowered than they already are.
Lore must take a back seat to that which makes for better gameplay.
Yeah, no.
Especially something as ambiguous as this that could have been mitigated with original decisions and balancing of the original idea, but we need the Modern Warfare 2 crowd to buy our game, so bring on the ammo magazines.
Uhh yes. Bad design should be killed, lore be damned. The overheat system sucked. It was stupid when My sniper rifle would overheat every shot and it was stupid when my assault rifle could fire forever. I like the resource management aspect of ammo, from making sure I've got enough to timing reloads. I also like that it forces me to switch my weapons around, unlike the first game.
You like being forced into using a less effective, inefficient weapon?
Vents aren't even that difficult. Why would you need a vent expert? Give your team a little credit.
You know, i wondered...
Both times i have completed this i have sent Tali and it pisses me off on the harder settings
that the pressure or steam is cooking her alive... if i send legion, is he immune to that since he is not organic? In some of the intense firefights while trying to get to the valves i wonder if i will be able to do it in time on insanity before Tali gets pressure cooked like a chicken
Lore must take a back seat to that which makes for better gameplay.
Yeah, no.
Especially something as ambiguous as this that could have been mitigated with original decisions and balancing of the original idea, but we need the Modern Warfare 2 crowd to buy our game, so bring on the ammo magazines.
Uhh yes. Bad design should be killed, lore be damned. The overheat system sucked. It was stupid when My sniper rifle would overheat every shot and it was stupid when my assault rifle could fire forever. I like the resource management aspect of ammo, from making sure I've got enough to timing reloads. I also like that it forces me to switch my weapons around, unlike the first game.
You like being forced into using a less effective, inefficient weapon?
Given that in this case less effective is as compared to the incredibly unbalanced weapons of Mass Effect 1...yes.
ME2 incentivizes switching weapons as per the situation and makes it such that in most cases weapon categories do not have a choice that is simply flat out "the best". Furthermore, missing now actually means something. This is superior gameplay if you ask me.
There was never any reason to use anything but the pistol in ME1.
Everything else was ornamentation.
Elendil on
0
GoodKingJayIIIThey wanna get mygold on the ceilingRegistered Userregular
edited February 2010
This was probably obvious to everyone, but I just noticed it based on the way the game concluded.
The color of the star behind TIM in the last cutscene is based only on your decision to save/destroy the collector base.
I spent both ME1 and ME2 as an 80/20 Renegade, and in ME2 I was probably even worse. That meant giving the "fuck you" to everybody, including Cerberus. So I do what any good Renegade would do, blew that Collector monstrosity sky high and told TIM to fuck off. So at the end, I got the blue sun in the background.
ME3 should be pretty interesting. My Renegade Shep has literally alienated everybody.
Lore must take a back seat to that which makes for better gameplay.
Yeah, no.
Especially something as ambiguous as this that could have been mitigated with original decisions and balancing of the original idea, but we need the Modern Warfare 2 crowd to buy our game, so bring on the ammo magazines.
Ah of course. When in doubt "teh pubbies r ruinin' our deep gaemz!"
Is it truly that mindbending to consider the possibility that Bioware simply felt it made for better pacing and gameplay? And decided that was more important than some throwaway lines in the Codex?
Yes it is mindbending compared to the fact that the game was consciously tailored to appeal to the regular shooter fan. The way you do that, is to make your game more like a regular shooter.
It's not even what I said. The above is a straight up Casey Hudson quote, just simply applied to this specific mechanism which proves what he said was right.
You're free to believe whatever you want to believe, but some things just simply make more sense than others.
Ammo clips are bad, but the biggest wtf in this game has to be
near ending spoilers
your ENTIRE team goes on a mission the game doesn't even attempt to explain what it's about and your crew gets captured. I usually only take 2 other people, why did everyone have to come with me that one time?
Jast on
0
FairchildRabbit used short words that were easy to understand, like "Hello Pooh, how about Lunch ?"Registered Userregular
You have to beat the game, then invite your lover up to your room, the intercom for which is next to your personal computer in your cabin and kinda hard to target right. Once there you can click the couch or your bed for cuddles.
You need to talk to your love interest after the suicide mission first. Then the "invite sweety up to my cabin to share some quality time" button appears.
Lore must take a back seat to that which makes for better gameplay.
Yeah, no.
Especially something as ambiguous as this that could have been mitigated with original decisions and balancing of the original idea, but we need the Modern Warfare 2 crowd to buy our game, so bring on the ammo magazines.
Uhh yes. Bad design should be killed, lore be damned. The overheat system sucked. It was stupid when My sniper rifle would overheat every shot and it was stupid when my assault rifle could fire forever. I like the resource management aspect of ammo, from making sure I've got enough to timing reloads. I also like that it forces me to switch my weapons around, unlike the first game.
You like being forced into using a less effective, inefficient weapon?
A bit, yeah. Overcoming adversity, using resources available to their maximum potential, being forced to rethink a tactical situation, all are interesting to me. Much moreso than Burn adrenaline rush > shoot forever. Plus in this game, there is no inefficient weapon. I used all my weapons because all are useful in specific situations. On my vanguard it was lmg for shields, pistols for armor and long distance kills, and shotguns because biotic charge was awesome. Soldier was a bit more bland since assault rifles are so versatile. AR for generically everything, sniper for long kills and picking off important targets, pistol for when i ran out of sniper ammo, and shotgun for husks.
Lore must take a back seat to that which makes for better gameplay.
Yeah, no.
Especially something as ambiguous as this that could have been mitigated with original decisions and balancing of the original idea, but we need the Modern Warfare 2 crowd to buy our game, so bring on the ammo magazines.
Uhh yes. Bad design should be killed, lore be damned. The overheat system sucked. It was stupid when My sniper rifle would overheat every shot and it was stupid when my assault rifle could fire forever. I like the resource management aspect of ammo, from making sure I've got enough to timing reloads. I also like that it forces me to switch my weapons around, unlike the first game.
You like being forced into using a less effective, inefficient weapon?
More like all the weapons are now efficient with a system that encourages weapon switching. That makes for better gameplay than having a single weapon be the best choice for any situation.
Neva on
SC2 Beta: Neva.ling
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
This was probably obvious to everyone, but I just noticed it based on the way the game concluded.
The color of the star behind TIM in the last cutscene is based only on your decision to save/destroy the collector base.
I spent both ME1 and ME2 as an 80/20 Renegade, and in ME2 I was probably even worse. That meant giving the "fuck you" to everybody, including Cerberus. So I do what any good Renegade would do, blew that Collector monstrosity sky high and told TIM to fuck off. So at the end, I got the blue sun in the background.
ME3 should be pretty interesting. My Renegade Shep has literally alienated everybody.
On that choice:
Destroying the base is actually the Paragon choice. Though I agree it makes sense for your character.
Kind of like how I was 70/30 Paragon because, while I tried to nice and noble, some people just needed a bullet in the head.
gjaustin on
0
DHSChase lizards.....bark at donkeys..Registered Userregular
Lore must take a back seat to that which makes for better gameplay.
Yeah, no.
Especially something as ambiguous as this that could have been mitigated with original decisions and balancing of the original idea, but we need the Modern Warfare 2 crowd to buy our game, so bring on the ammo magazines.
Allright, you're stretching. Like a lot.
Please explain simply how a: Having limited ammunition attracts the "Modern Warfare 2 crowd", b: How overheating would balance out the Heavy Pistol v. the Hand Cannon, and c: how overheating would force you to use any weapon other than one specific strong weapon the entire course.
Because that is straight up silly goose, yo.
Are you actually postulating that there is a type of person who is thinking "God, Everything about Mass Effect 2 looks awesome, but fuck I have unlimited ammunition? FUCK THAT GAME"?
Seriously?
Think about that a little more.
In fact, the very idea that A single person would buy or not buy Mass Effect 2 as an entry point to the series based on the ammunition system strains credulity to the point of impossibility.
For one thing, that would require a degree of research into the game, which already means the person is into videogames enough that would use the internet to do research, putting them in a demographic that isn't likely to be swayed over that. It's not like there's a sticker on the box saying "now with Ammo!" or anything. Or was it every mentioned in a single piece of mainstream advertisement , in fact it was sold on the cinematics and dialog more than that.
Re: What Casey Hudson said; you're the one likely misinterpreting what HE said. It wasn't about adding features more like a standard Shooter to make it more appealing to that demographic; but rather making the shooter component better, so that it would appeal to shooter fans. The design decision for ammo clips and what not probably came about in addressing one of the primary complaints about the first game. The other way around doesn't make that much sense, to be honest.
DHS on
"Grip 'em up, grip 'em, grip 'em good, said the Gryphon... to the pig."
Eh, I see the pros and cons of the system. But it was still hella retarded that my Infiltrator, the sniper class, could only kill about 5 enemies before I was forced to abandon the nature of the class and go running in with a machine gun like a soldier. And on the other end of the spectrum, by the end of the game I was solely using the machine gun because with its 700 round clip, I never ran out of ammo ever again.
I hope they can find some sort of middle ground between each system for ME3.
The Wolfman on
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
Lore must take a back seat to that which makes for better gameplay.
Yeah, no.
Especially something as ambiguous as this that could have been mitigated with original decisions and balancing of the original idea, but we need the Modern Warfare 2 crowd to buy our game, so bring on the ammo magazines.
Allright, you're stretching. Like a lot.
Please explain simply how a: Having limited ammunition attracts the "Modern Warfare 2 crowd", b: How overheating would balance out the Heavy Pistol v. the Hand Cannon, and c: how overheating would force you to use any weapon other than one specific strong weapon the entire course.
Because that is straight up silly goose, yo.
Are you actually postulating that there is a type of person who is thinking "God, Everything about Mass Effect 2 looks awesome, but fuck I have unlimited ammunition? FUCK THAT GAME"?
Seriously?
Think about that a little more.
In fact, the very idea that A single person would buy or not buy Mass Effect 2 as an entry point to the series based on the ammunition system strains credulity to the point of impossibility.
For one thing, that would require a degree of research into the game, which already means the person is into videogames enough that would use the internet to do research, putting them in a demographic that isn't likely to be swayed over that. It's not like there's a sticker on the box saying "now with Ammo!" or anything. Or was it every mentioned in a single piece of mainstream advertisement , in fact it was sold on the cinematics and dialog more than that.
Nobody said that a single person would buy or not buy Mass Effect 2 based on the ammunition system.
Lore must take a back seat to that which makes for better gameplay.
Yeah, no.
Especially something as ambiguous as this that could have been mitigated with original decisions and balancing of the original idea, but we need the Modern Warfare 2 crowd to buy our game, so bring on the ammo magazines.
Ah of course. When in doubt "teh pubbies r ruinin' our deep gaemz!"
Is it truly that mindbending to consider the possibility that Bioware simply felt it made for better pacing and gameplay? And decided that was more important than some throwaway lines in the Codex?
Yes it is mindbending compared to the fact that the game was consciously tailored to appeal to the regular shooter fan. The way you do that, is to make your game more like a regular shooter.
It's not even what I said. The above is a straight up Casey Hudson quote, just simply applied to this specific mechanism which proves what he said was right.
You're free to believe whatever you want to believe, but some things just simply make more sense than others.
Could it possibly be that making it "more like a regular shooter" is merely symptomatic of improving the pacing in a game that was already a shooter?
Bioware experimented with overheating and an ammo-less system in ME1. That's grand, but sometimes a trope exists for a reason. In this case I'm hard pressed to see what exactly we would gain by going back to ammo-less.
The only thing I dislike about the ammo system is the heavy weapons ammo. Maybe it would be unbalanced, but I hate the fact that I have to search the entire galaxy for a freaking grenade.
Cherrn on
All creature will die and all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai.
Lore must take a back seat to that which makes for better gameplay.
Yeah, no.
Especially something as ambiguous as this that could have been mitigated with original decisions and balancing of the original idea, but we need the Modern Warfare 2 crowd to buy our game, so bring on the ammo magazines.
Ah of course. When in doubt "teh pubbies r ruinin' our deep gaemz!"
Is it truly that mindbending to consider the possibility that Bioware simply felt it made for better pacing and gameplay? And decided that was more important than some throwaway lines in the Codex?
Yes it is mindbending compared to the fact that the game was consciously tailored to appeal to the regular shooter fan. The way you do that, is to make your game more like a regular shooter.
It's not even what I said. The above is a straight up Casey Hudson quote, just simply applied to this specific mechanism which proves what he said was right.
You're free to believe whatever you want to believe, but some things just simply make more sense than others.
Could it possibly be that making it "more like a regular shooter" is merely symptomatic of improving the pacing in a game that was already a shooter?
Bioware experimented with overheating and an ammo-less system in ME1. That's grand, but sometimes a trope exists for a reason. In this case I'm hard pressed to see what exactly we would gain by going back to ammo-less.
The mere fact that you can balance the overheating mechanic from the first game to behave in the exact same way as the ammo system does in the second game defeats your argument outright. All you have to do is adjust the timing of the overheat, the delay, and balance damage/rate of fire of each weapon to match the output.
You're right though, the trope does exist for a reason. To have familiarity of a genre permeate from one title to another.
Lore must take a back seat to that which makes for better gameplay.
Yeah, no.
Especially something as ambiguous as this that could have been mitigated with original decisions and balancing of the original idea, but we need the Modern Warfare 2 crowd to buy our game, so bring on the ammo magazines.
Ah of course. When in doubt "teh pubbies r ruinin' our deep gaemz!"
Is it truly that mindbending to consider the possibility that Bioware simply felt it made for better pacing and gameplay? And decided that was more important than some throwaway lines in the Codex?
Yes it is mindbending compared to the fact that the game was consciously tailored to appeal to the regular shooter fan. The way you do that, is to make your game more like a regular shooter.
It's not even what I said. The above is a straight up Casey Hudson quote, just simply applied to this specific mechanism which proves what he said was right.
You're free to believe whatever you want to believe, but some things just simply make more sense than others.
Could it possibly be that making it "more like a regular shooter" is merely symptomatic of improving the pacing in a game that was already a shooter?
Bioware experimented with overheating and an ammo-less system in ME1. That's grand, but sometimes a trope exists for a reason. In this case I'm hard pressed to see what exactly we would gain by going back to ammo-less.
The mere fact that you can balance the overheating mechanic from the first game to behave in the exact same way as the ammo system does in the second game defeats your argument outright. All you have to do is adjust the timing of the overheat, the delay, and balance damage/rate of fire of each weapon to match the output.
You're right though, the trope does exist for a reason. To have familiarity of a genre permeate from one title to another.
I don't know why I bother arguing with someone who clearly has a psychic link with all Bioware Devs.
I mean really, I don't know how you can sit here and just declare these things as though they are for sure the only possibility. Like it's impossible that they tried what you suggest and found ammo to be easier to balance.
I'm not even trying to suggest that what you're saying isn't the case, only that maybe
Just maybe we should consider that THE CORPORATIONS might not be fucking us over with gross pubby cooty mechanics.
FairchildRabbit used short words that were easy to understand, like "Hello Pooh, how about Lunch ?"Registered Userregular
edited February 2010
It's also a dose of, dare I say it, realism. David Bellavia was an American infantryman in Iraq and he wrote a book titled HOUSE TO HOUSE about his experiences in Fallujah in 2004. The centerpiece of the book is his minute-by-minute story of how he singlehandedly cleared a house full of terrorists, and bulk of his thinking throughout this ordeal is "how many clips of ammo do I have left" and "is this clip empty or do I have a couple of rounds left ?"
Lore must take a back seat to that which makes for better gameplay.
Yeah, no.
Especially something as ambiguous as this that could have been mitigated with original decisions and balancing of the original idea, but we need the Modern Warfare 2 crowd to buy our game, so bring on the ammo magazines.
Ah of course. When in doubt "teh pubbies r ruinin' our deep gaemz!"
Is it truly that mindbending to consider the possibility that Bioware simply felt it made for better pacing and gameplay? And decided that was more important than some throwaway lines in the Codex?
Yes it is mindbending compared to the fact that the game was consciously tailored to appeal to the regular shooter fan. The way you do that, is to make your game more like a regular shooter.
It's not even what I said. The above is a straight up Casey Hudson quote, just simply applied to this specific mechanism which proves what he said was right.
You're free to believe whatever you want to believe, but some things just simply make more sense than others.
Could it possibly be that making it "more like a regular shooter" is merely symptomatic of improving the pacing in a game that was already a shooter?
Bioware experimented with overheating and an ammo-less system in ME1. That's grand, but sometimes a trope exists for a reason. In this case I'm hard pressed to see what exactly we would gain by going back to ammo-less.
The mere fact that you can balance the overheating mechanic from the first game to behave in the exact same way as the ammo system does in the second game defeats your argument outright. All you have to do is adjust the timing of the overheat, the delay, and balance damage/rate of fire of each weapon to match the output.
You're right though, the trope does exist for a reason. To have familiarity of a genre permeate from one title to another.
I don't know why I bother arguing with someone who clearly has a psychic link with all Bioware Devs.
I mean really, I don't know how you can sit here and just declare these things as though they are for sure the only possibility. Like it's impossible that they tried what you suggest and found ammo to be easier to balance.
I'm not even trying to suggest that what you're saying isn't the case, only that maybe
Just maybe we should consider that THE CORPORATIONS might not be fucking us over with gross pubby cooty mechanics.
They are the likeliest possibility, and as such, the one most likely true.
The only thing I dislike about the ammo system is the heavy weapons ammo. Maybe it would be unbalanced, but I hate the fact that I have to search the entire galaxy for a freaking grenade.
I am surprised and disappointed that you just don't start every mission and landing with "full" ammo. It makes sense story wise and gameplay wise to have it like this.
Cerberus and the Normandy have the supplies, contacts and resources to find and acquire these things, you should always have them topped up when you return to the ship. Looking for Heavy Weapons Ammo would not be enjoyable at all.
I almost never use the heavy weapons, so I end up getting the "bounty" on the ammo. I've never had to really look before.
Endomatic on
0
KlykaDO you have anySPARE BATTERIES?Registered Userregular
edited February 2010
I do think the story reason of being able to sustain a more coherent stream of fire to take down shields is pretty reasonable though.
Klyka on
SC2 EU ID Klyka.110
0
GoodKingJayIIIThey wanna get mygold on the ceilingRegistered Userregular
This was probably obvious to everyone, but I just noticed it based on the way the game concluded.
The color of the star behind TIM in the last cutscene is based only on your decision to save/destroy the collector base.
I spent both ME1 and ME2 as an 80/20 Renegade, and in ME2 I was probably even worse. That meant giving the "fuck you" to everybody, including Cerberus. So I do what any good Renegade would do, blew that Collector monstrosity sky high and told TIM to fuck off. So at the end, I got the blue sun in the background.
ME3 should be pretty interesting. My Renegade Shep has literally alienated everybody.
On that choice:
Destroying the base is actually the Paragon choice. Though I agree it makes sense for your character.
Kind of like how I was 70/30 Paragon because, while I tried to nice and noble, some people just needed a bullet in the head.
Yeah. It makes sense that it's the Paragon option. Not disagreeing with that. I think it could also be construed as a Renegade option.
My Shep was tired of being someone's pawn, including Cerberus's.
GoodKingJayIII on
Battletag: Threeve#1501
PSN: Threeve703
0
ChaosHatHop, hop, hop, HA!Trick of the lightRegistered Userregular
Lore must take a back seat to that which makes for better gameplay.
Yeah, no.
Especially something as ambiguous as this that could have been mitigated with original decisions and balancing of the original idea, but we need the Modern Warfare 2 crowd to buy our game, so bring on the ammo magazines.
Uhh yes. Bad design should be killed, lore be damned. The overheat system sucked. It was stupid when My sniper rifle would overheat every shot and it was stupid when my assault rifle could fire forever. I like the resource management aspect of ammo, from making sure I've got enough to timing reloads. I also like that it forces me to switch my weapons around, unlike the first game.
You like being forced into using a less effective, inefficient weapon?
Yes. The game is way, way better because of this. Perfect example: the infiltrator. Because ammo and shots are limited on sniper rifles, the infiltrator is allowed to deal a fuckton of damage out of it and carve a unique sniping niche out of the game relative to any other class that can pick up sniper rifles (or learn to). Even on the very hardest difficulties, with proper ammo mods the infiltrator can one shot most non boss type enemies with a headshot. That simply isn't balanced when you have infinity shots. When you have ten shots and have to pick and call them carefully, then it becomes a gameplay decision to use them, and a very satisfying one. Furthermore, this forces the player to work on the other aspects of the infiltrator's gameplay, namely the up close gunning and retreat tactics conferred by the cloak. Would ANYONE have even bothered doing anything else but headshotting every mob in the game slowly given infinite ammo?
Or the adept, divorced of the godlike pistol option for damage gets more damaging abilities. Push and pull slam enemies into barricades for damage, warp combines with other abilities for massive damage. You couldn't have that with a ridiculous pistol in the last game, because then the adept becomes good at way too many things too fast, crowd control and damage output. This is incidentally why there is a global cooldown on abilities now.
The game is better for the restrictions. A good analogy if you're familiar with it would be looking at Starcraft with infinite resources or Magic: The Gathering with infinite mana. It just becomes ridiculous. Resource management should be a part of games. It forces the player to make real gameplay choices.
The quote tree tells me that you are working on the base assumption that Biowares decisions are predicated on mainstreaming things, not why it is most likely that this is actually the case.
The quote tree also suggests that you are working under the core assumption that "like shooters = bad"
Having finished my hardcore vanguard (got to level 30, did all the quests, redid the ending so all my dudes survived) I went back and imported my 28 soldier that I first beat the game with for my insanity run. So far? Fun as hell. Haven't died yet though I suspect once I get to the damn vorcha pyros that will change, but this is even more fun than hardcore was.
Arkady on
LoL: failboattootoot
0
FairchildRabbit used short words that were easy to understand, like "Hello Pooh, how about Lunch ?"Registered Userregular
edited February 2010
Actually, now that I think about it,
Jack really is the cuddling type, way deep down inside, once you get past all the layers of "f_ck you and the rest of the f_cking universe, too !" . Every Bioware rpg since BG2 has given us a Viconia stand-in, the Bad Girl who just wants to be loved.
Posts
Allright, you're stretching. Like a lot.
Please explain simply how a: Having limited ammunition attracts the "Modern Warfare 2 crowd", b: How overheating would balance out the Heavy Pistol v. the Hand Cannon, and c: how overheating would force you to use any weapon other than one specific strong weapon the entire course.
Because that is straight up silly goose, yo.
Are you actually postulating that there is a type of person who is thinking "God, Everything about Mass Effect 2 looks awesome, but fuck I have unlimited ammunition? FUCK THAT GAME"?
Seriously?
Think about that a little more.
Ah of course. When in doubt "teh pubbies r ruinin' our deep gaemz!"
Is it truly that mindbending to consider the possibility that Bioware simply felt it made for better pacing and gameplay? And decided that was more important than some throwaway lines in the Codex?
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
Uhh yes. Bad design should be killed, lore be damned. The overheat system sucked. It was stupid when My sniper rifle would overheat every shot and it was stupid when my assault rifle could fire forever. I like the resource management aspect of ammo, from making sure I've got enough to timing reloads. I also like that it forces me to switch my weapons around, unlike the first game. I don't like that you can't fire your guns when you are out of ammo and use the overheat system from the first one, but frankly, I can't imagine that hybridizing the 2 wouldn't make sniper rifles even more overpowered than they already are.
LoL: failboattootoot
You like being forced into using a less effective, inefficient weapon?
You know, i wondered...
Both times i have completed this i have sent Tali and it pisses me off on the harder settings
Given that in this case less effective is as compared to the incredibly unbalanced weapons of Mass Effect 1...yes.
ME2 incentivizes switching weapons as per the situation and makes it such that in most cases weapon categories do not have a choice that is simply flat out "the best". Furthermore, missing now actually means something. This is superior gameplay if you ask me.
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
Everything else was ornamentation.
I spent both ME1 and ME2 as an 80/20 Renegade, and in ME2 I was probably even worse. That meant giving the "fuck you" to everybody, including Cerberus. So I do what any good Renegade would do, blew that Collector monstrosity sky high and told TIM to fuck off. So at the end, I got the blue sun in the background.
ME3 should be pretty interesting. My Renegade Shep has literally alienated everybody.
PSN: Threeve703
Yes it is mindbending compared to the fact that the game was consciously tailored to appeal to the regular shooter fan. The way you do that, is to make your game more like a regular shooter.
It's not even what I said. The above is a straight up Casey Hudson quote, just simply applied to this specific mechanism which proves what he said was right.
You're free to believe whatever you want to believe, but some things just simply make more sense than others.
near ending spoilers
A bit, yeah. Overcoming adversity, using resources available to their maximum potential, being forced to rethink a tactical situation, all are interesting to me. Much moreso than Burn adrenaline rush > shoot forever. Plus in this game, there is no inefficient weapon. I used all my weapons because all are useful in specific situations. On my vanguard it was lmg for shields, pistols for armor and long distance kills, and shotguns because biotic charge was awesome. Soldier was a bit more bland since assault rifles are so versatile. AR for generically everything, sniper for long kills and picking off important targets, pistol for when i ran out of sniper ammo, and shotgun for husks.
LoL: failboattootoot
More like all the weapons are now efficient with a system that encourages weapon switching. That makes for better gameplay than having a single weapon be the best choice for any situation.
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
On that choice:
Kind of like how I was 70/30 Paragon because, while I tried to nice and noble, some people just needed a bullet in the head.
In fact, the very idea that A single person would buy or not buy Mass Effect 2 as an entry point to the series based on the ammunition system strains credulity to the point of impossibility.
For one thing, that would require a degree of research into the game, which already means the person is into videogames enough that would use the internet to do research, putting them in a demographic that isn't likely to be swayed over that. It's not like there's a sticker on the box saying "now with Ammo!" or anything. Or was it every mentioned in a single piece of mainstream advertisement , in fact it was sold on the cinematics and dialog more than that.
Re: What Casey Hudson said; you're the one likely misinterpreting what HE said. It wasn't about adding features more like a standard Shooter to make it more appealing to that demographic; but rather making the shooter component better, so that it would appeal to shooter fans. The design decision for ammo clips and what not probably came about in addressing one of the primary complaints about the first game. The other way around doesn't make that much sense, to be honest.
I hope they can find some sort of middle ground between each system for ME3.
Nobody said that a single person would buy or not buy Mass Effect 2 based on the ammunition system.
Could it possibly be that making it "more like a regular shooter" is merely symptomatic of improving the pacing in a game that was already a shooter?
Bioware experimented with overheating and an ammo-less system in ME1. That's grand, but sometimes a trope exists for a reason. In this case I'm hard pressed to see what exactly we would gain by going back to ammo-less.
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
The mere fact that you can balance the overheating mechanic from the first game to behave in the exact same way as the ammo system does in the second game defeats your argument outright. All you have to do is adjust the timing of the overheat, the delay, and balance damage/rate of fire of each weapon to match the output.
You're right though, the trope does exist for a reason. To have familiarity of a genre permeate from one title to another.
I don't know why I bother arguing with someone who clearly has a psychic link with all Bioware Devs.
I mean really, I don't know how you can sit here and just declare these things as though they are for sure the only possibility. Like it's impossible that they tried what you suggest and found ammo to be easier to balance.
I'm not even trying to suggest that what you're saying isn't the case, only that maybe
Just maybe we should consider that THE CORPORATIONS might not be fucking us over with gross pubby cooty mechanics.
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
They are the likeliest possibility, and as such, the one most likely true.
Why?
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
I am surprised and disappointed that you just don't start every mission and landing with "full" ammo. It makes sense story wise and gameplay wise to have it like this.
Cerberus and the Normandy have the supplies, contacts and resources to find and acquire these things, you should always have them topped up when you return to the ship. Looking for Heavy Weapons Ammo would not be enjoyable at all.
I almost never use the heavy weapons, so I end up getting the "bounty" on the ammo. I've never had to really look before.
Yeah. It makes sense that it's the Paragon option. Not disagreeing with that. I think it could also be construed as a Renegade option.
My Shep was tired of being someone's pawn, including Cerberus's.
PSN: Threeve703
Yes. The game is way, way better because of this. Perfect example: the infiltrator. Because ammo and shots are limited on sniper rifles, the infiltrator is allowed to deal a fuckton of damage out of it and carve a unique sniping niche out of the game relative to any other class that can pick up sniper rifles (or learn to). Even on the very hardest difficulties, with proper ammo mods the infiltrator can one shot most non boss type enemies with a headshot. That simply isn't balanced when you have infinity shots. When you have ten shots and have to pick and call them carefully, then it becomes a gameplay decision to use them, and a very satisfying one. Furthermore, this forces the player to work on the other aspects of the infiltrator's gameplay, namely the up close gunning and retreat tactics conferred by the cloak. Would ANYONE have even bothered doing anything else but headshotting every mob in the game slowly given infinite ammo?
Or the adept, divorced of the godlike pistol option for damage gets more damaging abilities. Push and pull slam enemies into barricades for damage, warp combines with other abilities for massive damage. You couldn't have that with a ridiculous pistol in the last game, because then the adept becomes good at way too many things too fast, crowd control and damage output. This is incidentally why there is a global cooldown on abilities now.
The game is better for the restrictions. A good analogy if you're familiar with it would be looking at Starcraft with infinite resources or Magic: The Gathering with infinite mana. It just becomes ridiculous. Resource management should be a part of games. It forces the player to make real gameplay choices.
The quote tree tells me that you are working on the base assumption that Biowares decisions are predicated on mainstreaming things, not why it is most likely that this is actually the case.
The quote tree also suggests that you are working under the core assumption that "like shooters = bad"
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O92m-yy4gGk
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
beat me to it. Jerkface.
If you were in person, you'd punch them.
LoL: failboattootoot