PETITION: PLEASE CHANGE THE INFINITE AMMO DESIGN

[Moatilliatta]

Other than that I don't see why having unlimited ammo is any advantage in a game. To me it just seems like another example of games becoming streamlined and stripped of any possible depth. One of the paradoxes of much of next gen game design is that even as we develop the technology to create more complex gameworlds than we once had, we seem to be going out of our way to make our gameworlds less complex.

Complexity is only good if it brings something to the game. The thing I'm hoping for is that Obsidian is removing unnecesary complexity as I outlined in my earlier post. Ammo is only usefull as a game mechanic if it is scarce and/or has great variation by design, if such a design vision has never been present in AP then it is only logical to remove it.

 

The article that mentioned unlimited ammo also mentioned introducing things gradually to make the game easier to get inot, this suggests that there is complexity in the game, just not in the ammo department.

 

These kind of things have been always controlled by giving limited amount of ammunition for high end weapons.

The article mentioned that a specific weapon will have limited ammo, this is probably because it is very powerful.

Edit: Just read that you mentioned this. Whoops.

 

Edit: Also, seriously, tl;dr. I'm trying to read through all of it but god damn.

Edited June 1, 2008 by Moatilliatta

[Xard]

It is long post because I try to elaborate very specifically why this is bad design to developers who might be lurking in this topic as guests as it looks like my initial starting post wasn't specific enough

 

These kind of things have been always controlled by giving limited amount of ammunition for high end weapons.

The article mentioned that a specific weapon will have limited ammo, this is probably because it is very powerful.

Edit: Just read that you mentioned this. Whoops.

 

Edit: Also, seriously, tl;dr. I'm trying to read through all of it but god damn.

 

 

 

"Now unless "special weapons" includes shotguns, AK-47's etc. common weaponry - which I'm sure is not the case - it means such powerful weapons have unlimited ammo. By going common developing principles shotgun should be 1-2 shots killing machine, AK-47 or your other random assault riffle should be lethal by burst of ammo etc.

 

This means limiting ammo for "special weapons" (I hope they're not in style of "plasma cannon") doesn't mean anything because you're able to take out your enemies by your normal weaponry with couple of shots. There's no reason to use these special weapons.

 

Unless they fall for design decision this approach forces them to, namely weakening damage of your common weaponry. With unlimited ammo this means you must spend whole clip on one enemy on average with weapons like AK-47.

 

I've played such games and they completely take the fun away. Anyone who plays FPS's knows nothing is as annoying as guns without any impact or ****."

Edited June 1, 2008 by Xard

[Guest The Architect]

Signed.

[Moatilliatta]

@Xard

Yeah I realize why you do it but... it's long god dammit.

 

The biggest mistake I can find in your reasoning is that you work from the assumption that AP will be like all other games with real time shooting i.e. lots of weapons, we don't know if we have this. I actually think that the article is suggesting that we won't have a lot of different weapons on a mission and that leaves quite a lot of possibility that the weapons will be differentiated through other means than ammo consumption.

[Xard]

The biggest mistake I can find in your reasoning is that you work from the assumption that AP will be like all other games with real time shooting i.e. lots of weapons, we don't know if we have this. I actually think that the article is suggesting that we won't have a lot of different weapons on a mission and that leaves quite a lot of possibility that the weapons will be differentiated through other means than ammo consumption.

 

 

Screenshots show quite many different kinds of weapons etc. and earlier previews doesn't mention anything in style of small weapon arsenal. Nor did I see anything like that in this preview.

 

All other agent games also strenghten the notion. They're full with different weapons.

 

 

I'd be very thankful if someone (preferably MCA himself ) would come and explain their stance/reasons for these designs. All I can see is ridiculous and unneeded streamlining (something Avellone himself admitted sometimes worrying in that interview) which could be easily fixed

[Slowtrain]

Other than that I don't see why having unlimited ammo is any advantage in a game. To me it just seems like another example of games becoming streamlined and stripped of any possible depth. One of the paradoxes of much of next gen game design is that even as we develop the technology to create more complex gameworlds than we once had, we seem to be going out of our way to make our gameworlds less complex.

Complexity is only good if it brings something to the game. The thing I'm hoping for is that Obsidian is removing unnecesary complexity as I outlined in my earlier post. Ammo is only usefull as a game mechanic if it is scarce and/or has great variation by design, if such a design vision has never been present in AP then it is only logical to remove it.

 

The article that mentioned unlimited ammo also mentioned introducing things gradually to make the game easier to get inot, this suggests that there is complexity in the game, just not in the ammo department.

 

 

 

I remember back in the days of the development of DX:Invisible War when it was first announced that IW was going to drop the skill system and aug system used by Deus Ex. A lot of people really screamed and whined that it was a horrible thing to do and would diminish a lot of what made DX such as interesting game.

 

And at the time, I was one of the people who said: Trust the developers. They must know what they are doing. Even though they appear to be reducing the game from the original in a bad way, they will do somethign to make up for it.

 

And you know what? I was wrong. And all the people who screamed and whined like babies were absolutely right. The developers design decsions completely hosed IW. Ever since then I've come to believe that gamers actually have a claerer understanding about what makes games fun and intersting than developers do. Mostly becuase gamers are generally only driven to desire fun games while develoeprs think about things like marketing and demographic appeal and maximizing sales potential.

 

Does anybody think IW is a superior game to DX?

[Humodour]

Other than that I don't see why having unlimited ammo is any advantage in a game. To me it just seems like another example of games becoming streamlined and stripped of any possible depth. One of the paradoxes of much of next gen game design is that even as we develop the technology to create more complex gameworlds than we once had, we seem to be going out of our way to make our gameworlds less complex.

Complexity is only good if it brings something to the game. The thing I'm hoping for is that Obsidian is removing unnecesary complexity as I outlined in my earlier post. Ammo is only usefull as a game mechanic if it is scarce and/or has great variation by design, if such a design vision has never been present in AP then it is only logical to remove it.

 

The article that mentioned unlimited ammo also mentioned introducing things gradually to make the game easier to get inot, this suggests that there is complexity in the game, just not in the ammo department.

 

 

 

I remember back in the days of the development of DX:Invisible War when it was first announced that IW was going to drop the skill system and aug system used by Deus Ex. A lot of people really screamed and whined that it was a horrible thing to do and would diminish a lot of what made DX such as interesting game.

 

And at the time, I was one of the people who said: Trust the developers. They must know what they are doing. Even though they appear to be reducing the game from the original in a bad way, they will do somethign to make up for it.

 

And you know what? I was wrong. And all the people who screamed and whined like babies were absolutely right. The developers design decsions completely hosed IW. Ever since then I've come to believe that gamers actually have a claerer understanding about what makes games fun and intersting than developers do. Mostly becuase gamers are generally only driven to desire fun games while develoeprs think about things like marketing and demographic appeal and maximizing sales potential.

 

Does anybody think IW is a superior game to DX?

 

This is exactly the reason I'm not liable to support an unlimited ammo decision. As soon as I hear "Obsidian is trying to streamline everything" I think back to the exact same words spoken by Warren Spectre and co about DX:IW, which as you state did not turn out well.

 

That said, I wouldn't say gamers have a better idea of design - just that sometimes there are issues that you should really listen to them about (and sometimes really shouldn't).

[Xard]

That said, I wouldn't say gamers have a better idea of design - just that sometimes there are issues that you should really listen to them about (and sometimes really shouldn't).

 

 

This is my point exactly.

 

IW was first thing to come in my mind too, "oddly" enough

Edited June 1, 2008 by Xard

[Slowtrain]

That said, I wouldn't say gamers have a better idea of design - just that sometimes there are issues that you should really listen to them about (and sometimes really shouldn't).

 

 

Well, I didn't really mean that gamers are bettrer at game design, only that they may ghave a clearer understanding of what is fun.

 

Another example would be when Reflexive was developing Lionheart and they admamantly refused to put a pause option in their realtime combat. A lot of people really got bent out of shape over that, saying that if Lionheart didn't have a pause feature the game would neither fun nor even really playable.

 

ANd how did it turn out? IIRC, at the last minute Reflexive insitututed a pause feature because they're internal playtesting had revealed that, well maybe some of these gamers do know what they are talkign about. And maybe it is not such a bad idea after all. SO kudos to reflexive for doing that (not that it matters any more).

 

SOmetimes gamers do know what they are talking about when they talk about the games they play and love.

[Humodour]

In my mind the thing we may not be banking on is that a system other than combat accounts for the variety and strategy lost to unlimited ammo. Say, this occasionally referenced superspy/superhuman abilities and feats system.

 

Still, I suppose even then I'd still want limited ammo (nothing wrong with even more variety and strategy options).

[Pidesco]

I was thinking a bit about how they've described combat, and about that over the top, "Kill Bill",character artwork, and suddenly this is starting to sound like a Devil May Cry RPG with an option of stealth gameplay thrown in for good measure. Which would irritate a lot of the more hardcore RPGers, but could, to me, be totally awesome as it's just the kind of game I'd like to play. Also, in such a game, infinite ammo would be okay, of course. J.E. has said before that he'd like to make a game along these lines so maybe that's what AP is turning into.

 

 

Now, with this in mind, I don't think the whole CIA agent, realism, Syriana angle would really work with such a game. This is the kind of game that I think would work better with a more lighthearted, humorous, and even satirical narrative, than with a standard action, conspiracy, taking-itself-very-seriously kind of storyline.

 

 

The devs should really pop in and say something...

[Xard]

You're reading too much into "Kill Bill" comment Pid

 

But developer comments are truly needed

 

 

Unless they succeed in DC30 Diplomacy check rave and rant and petition signing shall continue!

Edited June 1, 2008 by Xard

[Pidesco]

It isn't just the "Kill Bill" bit. It's also the infinite ammo, not being able to pick up weapons or bodies, and the supposed ability to "River Tam" enemies.

[Slowtrain]

I was thinking a bit about how they've described combat, and about that over the top, "Kill Bill",character artwork, and suddenly this is starting to sound like a Devil May Cry RPG with an option of stealth gameplay thrown in for good measure. Which would irritate a lot of the more hardcore RPGers, but could, to me, be totally awesome as it's just the kind of game I'd like to play. Also, in such a game, infinite ammo would be okay, of course. J.E. has said before that he'd like to make a game along these lines so maybe that's what AP is turning into.

 

 

Now, with this in mind, I don't think the whole CIA agent, realism, Syriana angle would really work with such a game. This is the kind of game that I think would work better with a more lighthearted, humorous, and even satirical narrative, than with a standard action, conspiracy, taking-itself-very-seriously kind of storyline.

 

 

The devs should really pop in and say something...

 

 

I agree. My reaction to infinite ammo was due to my understanding that this game wanted to be a somewhat serious and "realistic" ( I use this word reluctantly) spy rpg/stealth thingie with a lot fo dialogue and intrigue and subplots etc and so forth.

 

If it is going to buy more of a run and jump and shoot action rpg-lite game then the infinite ammo concept isn't quite as silly. I do think infinte ammo is pretty lame under almost any circumstances. I mean even Doom had ammo pickups. NOLF and NOLF 2, which were prety lighthearted stealth action rpg lite games had ammo oickups. Come on. Its not a terribly sophisticated thing to put in a game. The only advantage I can see is that not having to implement and balance limited ammo saves some dev time to implement other thigns elsewhere in the game. (of course I said that about IW as well. ooops).

 

Otoh, if this is going to be more of a serious spy game than I would think it would be much more interesting to make ammo extremely limited, the complete opposite of the infinite thing.

[themeteor]

I really can't see how limiting the players ammo adds anything. If a player wants to play a more "gun n' run" style then let them. That being said I do believe that there should be a mechanism to reward the player if they are able to conserve ammo - such as a guy you didn't kill helping you at a later date.

 

Also on the DX:IW thing would any one had minded the games faults half as much if it wasn't for the first two words in it's tittle?

Edited June 1, 2008 by themeteor

[Xard]

ability to "River Tam" enemies.

 

*pop culture knowledge check* CRITICAL FAIL

 

 

I was thinking a bit about how they've described combat, and about that over the top, "Kill Bill",character artwork, and suddenly this is starting to sound like a Devil May Cry RPG with an option of stealth gameplay thrown in for good measure. Which would irritate a lot of the more hardcore RPGers, but could, to me, be totally awesome as it's just the kind of game I'd like to play. Also, in such a game, infinite ammo would be okay, of course. J.E. has said before that he'd like to make a game along these lines so maybe that's what AP is turning into.

 

 

Now, with this in mind, I don't think the whole CIA agent, realism, Syriana angle would really work with such a game. This is the kind of game that I think would work better with a more lighthearted, humorous, and even satirical narrative, than with a standard action, conspiracy, taking-itself-very-seriously kind of storyline.

 

 

The devs should really pop in and say something...

 

Yeah, so far we've had entirely different info/picture on the game and now suddenly it's been "oh wait this is one big streamlined rollercoaster with silliness cuz it would be boring otherwise"

 

 

I agree. My reaction to infinite ammo was due to my understanding that this game wanted to be a somewhat serious and "realistic" ( I use this word reluctantly) spy rpg/stealth thingie with a lot fo dialogue and intrigue and subplots etc and so forth.

 

EXACTLY why this infinite ammo deal irked me so bad among few other stupidities (we could drag bodies in Thief for christ's sake, it isn't even option to NOT do so in spy game)

 

 

 

 

I really can't see how limiting the players ammo adds anything. If a player wants to play a more "gun n' run" style then let them. That being said I do believe that there should be a mechanism to reward the player if they are able to conserve ammo - such as a guy you didn't kill helping you at a later date.

 

Also on the DX:IW thing would any one had minded the games faults half as much if it wasn't for the first two words in it's tittle?

 

Read my big post on the previous page

 

Of course IW would've been better received but then again what difference it would've made between quality comparisons between two titles?

 

Nothing

 

 

edit: I just realized this is first rave and rant topic I've ever made on game designing. Cool

Edited June 1, 2008 by Xard

[Gorth]

ability to "River Tam" enemies.

 

*pop culture knowledge check* CRITICAL FAIL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Tam#River_Tam

 

Heretic!

[Xard]

ability to "River Tam" enemies.

 

*pop culture knowledge check* CRITICAL FAIL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Tam#River_Tam

 

Heretic!

 

C'mon I've only seen couple of episodes of Firefly and that was years ago

[Gorgon]

/signed

 

And oh, you run out of ammo in Unreal Tournament as well.

Impact hammer. But I guess that isn't a gun.

 

Yes any competitive shooter worth it salt abandons unlimited ammo. I think quake one had a flare gun that would count back to 20 bullets slowly when it was empty, not saying that quake 1 was a shooter worth its salt though.

 

The fact that it isn't a 'serious' game just means I will be even less interested, not that unlimited ammo is acceptable.

Edited June 1, 2008 by Gorgon

[Morgoth]

Unlimited ammo sucks indeed. Please don't become another DX IW catastrophe. Don't dismiss this basic design law for the sake of "accessibility".

Edited June 1, 2008 by Morgoth

[mkreku]

Why do American game designers always cater to the lowest common denominator when designing their games? In this case, I think they've reached the bottom of the human genome barrel: the rednecks!

 

I mean, who else would ever think "Uh, having ammo is lame. Much cooler to have unlimited ammo so you can shoot things constantly and never have to stop and think!!"?

 

Bad, bad design decision.

 

Signed (and I'd like to bitchslap the person responsible for this brilliant design choice).

[Omelette]

Agreed Xard

 

/signed

[random n00b]

That is, certain weapons are better suited to particular situations, and making a poor choice would only make thing more difficult for you.

That sounds nice, but how exactly and to what extent do you make weapon choice have an effect on the mission?

 

That seemed to be the case for Blood Money, but in the end, the fiber wire is all you ever needed.

 

Fallout also had a great variety of weapons and ammunition, and in the end, only a handful were really useful and effective enough to use on a regular basis, with almost complete independence of the encounter.

 

Bottom line is, it's very difficult to preserve suspension of disbelief when combining stuff like "superspy skills" and "realistic" aspects such as meaningful weapon choices, ammunition types, etc. Simply because a bullet is a bullet and it'll usually do a number on you.

 

Realism ≠ fun.

 

 

I'd be very thankful if someone (preferably MCA himself ) would come and explain their stance/reasons for these designs.

Yeah, one of the things I liked so much about these boards back then when K2 was in development was how MCA would routinely interact with users and answer questions about the game. I wish we could have that back.

 

I would really like to hear what motivated this design choice.

 

 

You're reading too much into "Kill Bill" comment Pid

Pehaps not. This is the game that "will change the way you think about RPGs", remember?

[Xard]

That is, certain weapons are better suited to particular situations, and making a poor choice would only make thing more difficult for you.

That sounds nice, but how exactly and to what extent do you make weapon choice have an effect on the mission?

 

That seemed to be the case for Blood Money, but in the end, the fiber wire is all you ever needed.

 

Fallout also had a great variety of weapons and ammunition, and in the end, only a handful were really useful and effective enough to use on a regular basis, with almost complete independence of the encounter.

 

Bottom line is, it's very difficult to preserve suspension of disbelief when combining stuff like "superspy skills" and "realistic" aspects such as meaningful weapon choices, ammunition types, etc. Simply because a bullet is a bullet and it'll usually do a number on you.

 

Realism ≠ fun.

 

 

I'd be very thankful if someone (preferably MCA himself ) would come and explain their stance/reasons for these designs.

Yeah, one of the things I liked so much about these boards back then when K2 was in development was how MCA would routinely interact with users and answer questions about the game. I wish we could have that back.

 

I would really like to hear what motivated this design choice.

 

 

You're reading too much into "Kill Bill" comment Pid

Pehaps not. This is the game that "will change the way you think about RPGs", remember?

 

 

How did you make that =/= mark?

 

*is jealous*

 

And MCA haven't been posting here since Darth Nuke fiasco though he really should ( apart from that Top Ten thread ages ago )

 

This time it is his responsibility again. He is Lead Designer on the game and he should follow the lead of his fellow obsidianate J.E Sawyer and David Gaider of Bioware. Heck, he did that during KotOR 2 development.

 

 

...not to sound demanding but lack of attention developer's have been showing in here lately...

 

Heck, you just hired Matthew Rorie to do PR and deal with community stuff. Doesn't this fall under that?

 

 

I've been very hyped and highly anticipating Alpha Protocol. Everything just seemed to strenghten the notion this'll be awesome game with great combat mechanics. Avellone & Mitsoda dream team, skill system inspired by Fallout, awesome character designs and combat system that untill now seemed to hold tons of potential?

 

It's not good feeling when such anticipations are halved due to load of small, ridiculous design decisions this latest preview showcased. Infinite ammo was by far worst of these and huge threat to combat system as I saw it and thus I directed my anger on this.

Edited June 1, 2008 by Xard

[Gorgon]

Run : charmap

 

яЪЎЂغغُ