PETITION: PLEASE CHANGE THE INFINITE AMMO DESIGN

[random n00b]

How did you make that =/= mark?

 

*is jealous*

I wield the full power of Unicode.

 

And, I'm bored.

 

 

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.

Well, I don't know about "responsibility". But I know that the chance of having the lead designer answer my questions regarding a game I highly anticipated was one of the main reasons that led me to register here, to begin with. *shrug* Edited June 1, 2008 by random n00b

[Xard]

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.

Well, I don't know about "responsibility". But I know that the chance of having the lead designer answer my questions regarding a game I highly anticipated was one of the main reasons that led me to register here, to begin with. *shrug*

 

Well, responsible only by historical weight given out by Black Isle and Obz other projects

[Gorgon]

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).

I suppose the core audience are the console teenagers, they have to design with them in mind or they wont make any money.

 

I guess its not unlike Soderbergh making an 'Oceans 102' in order to make a Guerrilla. Without the bread there won't be any 'Masks of The Betrayers'.

Edited June 1, 2008 by Gorgon

[Xard]

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).

I suppose the core audience is the console teenagers, they have to design with them in mind or they wont make any money.

 

I guess its not unlike Soderbergh making an Oceans 102 in order to make a Guerrilla

 

Not many "console teenager games" feature infinite ammo for instance

 

Besides, this game is rated M anyway

[Gorgon]

I dunno, years of experience seems to confirm to me that stupid = marketable.

[Morgoth]

I wish some Obsidian dev could comment on this "feature"?

[Gorgon]

They're all hiding in shame

Edited June 1, 2008 by Gorgon

[Jorian Drake]

i sign it, partially

 

i still wish to have 1-2 weapons that are propably energy ones, have lower damage, but have infinite ammo

[Xard]

i sign it, partially

 

i still wish to have 1-2 weapons that are propably energy ones, have lower damage, but have infinite ammo

 

Yeah, because obviously AP needs pew pew lazors

 

Great to see you Matthew reading and possibly writing post in here

 

If you're indeed doing that I hope you read this post carefully. It is long and contain some spelling errors but it was about as sensible as possible explanation for my reasonings at the time

Edited June 1, 2008 by Xard

[Gorgon]

Heres a though. Stick a check box in the options for toggling unlimited ammo on and off. It could be called 'idiot mode'. It probably won't, but it could is all's i'm sayin'

[Volourn]

"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."

 

We're not owed the developers posting here or interacting with us. The boards are here to discuss their games. That's it. Customers can be rather scummy, selfish, and egotistical. I hate 'em.

 

As for the topic, ehh, let them have unlimited ammo. Don't like it deal with it don't buy the game. ME did have a good alternative to somewhat limit non stop gunplay without it. Still, ultimtarely, I perosnally prefer limited ammo. But, *shrug* 'tis life.

Edited June 1, 2008 by Volourn

[Meshugger]

"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."

 

We're not woed the developers posting ehre or inetratcing with us. The boards are here to discuss their games. That's it. Customers can be rather scummy, selfish, and egotistical. I hate 'em.

 

As for the topic, ehh, let them have unlimited ammo. Donb't mlike it deal with it don't buy the game. ME did have a good alternative to somewhat limit non stop gunplay without it. Still, ultimtarely, I perosnally prefer limited ammo. But, *shrug* 'tis life.

 

I wouldn't say that they owe the board-members to discuss design-decisions with them. But it is a nice method in terms of customer interaction and in some ways good marketing when speaking of customer service. Not to mention that it is sign of good courtesy.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Is it possible that the infinite ammo was only for the purpose of showing the game off and something they plan on changing anyway? There are plenty of instances where devs will turn 'god mode' on or make something easier so they can show a game off without getting killed during the demo or frustrating the reporters testing it.

 

Hoping this is the case...

[Meshugger]

Hell, they even admitted that they had a "mana"-bar during some time in development. Hopefully unlimited ammo will go down the same road.

[Xard]

Is it possible that the infinite ammo was only for the purpose of showing the game off and something they plan on changing anyway? There are plenty of instances where devs will turn 'god mode' on or make something easier so they can show a game off without getting killed during the demo or frustrating the reporters testing it.

 

Hoping this is the case...

 

"The team has still made some potentially controversial choices however, such as offering unlimited ammo (except in case of very special weapons)"

 

 

edit: what, you think I get all worked up over nothing?

Edited June 1, 2008 by Xard

[Cycloneman]

Two-parter for quote limits.

1) 99 % of games draw from action movies. Yet only small percentage of these feature infinite ammo. Games with realistic combat aren't even numerous enough to mention dozen but realism isn't the point here. Just because something isn't searching for realistic approach doesn' mean it should use stupid one either

I'm just going to ignore this "point" because it's nothing more than a prelude to the rest of your argument. I didn't make the realism argument.

 

2) In RPG's when you take your specialization far enough you can bring your enemies in matter of few seconds. Infinite ammo is self-defeating in here too. It takes one bullet to kill Random Terrorist 01 on high levels and it takes five bullets to kill Random Terrorist 01 in low level. With infinite ammo it doesn't matter at all.

Because infinite ammunition = invulnerability? If I'm shooting at Random Terrorist 01, why aren't Random Terrorist 02 and his sibling Random Terrorist 03 shooting at me? Oh right, because their guns magically disappear as long as mine is pumping out bullets.

 

If you want to run through game with blazing AK-47 be my guest. Just don't except anyone else in here wants game to boil down into point where one game style and one or few high damage weapon overcomes all others. These kind of things have been always controlled by giving limited amount of ammunition for high end weapons. Alpha Protocol is doing version of this with "special weapons".

Right, because we all know that ammunition control actually alters the gun balance. Take a look at the Halo games - besides the stupid-powerful guns (like the Rocket Launcher), as long as you wander around a little you can constantly keep your ammunition up. But somehow, the guns are still pretty balanced (except, again, for the stupid-powerful guns, and the ****-tastic needler).

 

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 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.

When did you ever use "special weapons" (in other words: gun with a handful of bullets) in FPSs except to kill the most powerful enemies? Did you ever use the rocket launcher on a grunt, or the pistol on a tank?

 

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.

Because an AK-47 dealing high levels of damage can only possibly work if I can "only" carry hundreds of shots, instead of an infinite number? If this game has limited ammo, players will just stock up to ridiculous quantities, just like they always do, because they don't like running out of ammo.

 

3) Again unless you use Rambo tactic with constantly shooting such situation shouldn't be too likely. Accurate, short burts with your AK-47 should be enough to bring your enemies down and after fight you could just loot their bodies to recover most of your lost ammunition. You could also buy ammo from the shops.

Okay, so apparently you don't want people who want to play with an AK-47 all the time, spraying-and-praying, to play the same game as you? Beyond which, running around like a moron and spraying bullets everywhere won't work because you will GET SHOT AT AND DIE.

[Cycloneman]

In infinite ammo design this doesn't mean anything. Find cover and shoot from there to the general direction of enemy. They'll go down eventually

In finite ammo design this doesn't mean anything. Find cover and shoot from there to the general direction of enemy. They'll go down before you run out of ammo as long as you aren't firing randomly.

 

4) This is not survival horror game but this is agent game. Special agents don't take down entire fortresses with their unlimited ammo supply. Rather they use tactics and skill if forced to fight. Not the minigun they nicked from nearby helicopter

Let me respond with a question: if in real life, someone had a magical AK-47 (or shotgun, or whatever) that never ran out of ammunition, do you think they could take down "entire fortresses"?

 

I have no worries about running out of ammo for my SMG or buckshot so I just rush in and quickly dispatch all enemies outside.

No, you get shot dead because you're running around and your enemies can shoot you.

I go inside, build cover from metal boxes and let myself to be seen by camera. Then I just shoot shoot shoot shoot and shoot enemies as they reach opposite end of the corridor.

Then they throw a grenade down the hallway, and you die. Your example rests on the AI acting like a retard, which can be manipulated with or without limited ammunition.

 

Oh wait, I forgot, shooting people with powerful guns makes it impossible for you to be shot - oh wait.

MGS had big ammo capacity but you could still run out of ammo, same with many other games. Heck, it's possible to run out of ammo in nearly all shooters if you utilize tactics you'd use with infinite ammo design

I didn't realize "infinite ammo" meant "spray and pray". In fact, I'm quite certain that tactic would still be terrifyingly bad in every first person shooter ever made if almost every gun (except the rocket launchers and sniper rifles and such) had infinite ammunition.

 

6) Haven't played Mass Effect but I very, very often hear as long as you ain't complete idiot you can just gun your enemies down utilizing Gears of War method.

That's wrong. If you try to just snipe your enemies from behind cover, your enemies will frequently close in on you. Let's use cover-shoot-cover while a Krogan slams the butt end of his gun in my face!

 

As for gun lethality I've talked about it earlier.

No you didn't. Not in the sense of "don't stick your head out while you write '****' on the wall, or you will get shot." Just "without limited ammunition all the weapons will be ****," which is truly a grand logical leap.

 

GoW gameplay is insanely repetitive too and by no means favourable approach to the game. Not to mention it most of the time doesn't entail the "kicking in with blazing rifles" way that OE employees seem to buff as one approach.

I'm sorry, I thought we were complaining about how infinite ammo will somehow force me to get out from behind cover/use a stealthy approach and randomly spray bullets anywhere.

[Mulatdood]

The less things you have to collect the better. Infiinte ammo is the next step that started with people no longer being required to carry rations.

[Gorgon]

I guess the ultimate evolution is a game that plays itself without the need for cumbersome variables like players.

[Xard]

Stupid quote limits...

 

1) 99 % of games draw from action movies. Yet only small percentage of these feature infinite ammo. Games with realistic combat aren't even numerous enough to mention dozen but realism isn't the point here. Just because something isn't searching for realistic approach doesn' mean it should use stupid one either

I'm just going to ignore this "point" because it's nothing more than a prelude to the rest of your argument. I didn't make the realism argument.

 

No, and neither was I. I was just pointing out "realism" had nothing to with my stance.

 

2) In RPG's when you take your specialization far enough you can bring your enemies in matter of few seconds. Infinite ammo is self-defeating in here too. It takes one bullet to kill Random Terrorist 01 on high levels and it takes five bullets to kill Random Terrorist 01 in low level. With infinite ammo it doesn't matter at all.

Because infinite ammunition = invulnerability? If I'm shooting at Random Terrorist 01, why aren't Random Terrorist 02 and his sibling Random Terrorist 03 shooting at me? Oh right, because their guns magically disappear as long as mine is pumping out bullets.

 

 

Of course you're under fire if there's enemies. That has nothing to do with this point. Spending points in weapon skill(s) have very simple and basic effect: they enhance damage and accuracy. Now reportedly accuracy is completely player skill dependant instead of hidden number crunching a la Morrowind or Mass Effect and thus only thing "Weapon specialization: Rifles" has hold on is damage and some special feats (which might be otherwise choisable for all we know).

 

On guns it directly affects damage dealt with each hit.

 

Your pistols skill is level 2 out of 10

 

- It takes four shots to kill the enemy soldier

 

Your pistol skill is 8 out of 10

 

- It takes one shot to kill the enemy soldier

 

 

With infinite ammo such thing is completely arbitary. It takes few more shots and that's it. It's not like it is going to effect anything.

 

If you want to run through game with blazing AK-47 be my guest. Just don't except anyone else in here wants game to boil down into point where one game style and one or few high damage weapon overcomes all others. These kind of things have been always controlled by giving limited amount of ammunition for high end weapons. Alpha Protocol is doing version of this with "special weapons".

Right, because we all know that ammunition control actually alters the gun balance. Take a look at the Halo games - besides the stupid-powerful guns (like the Rocket Launcher), as long as you wander around a little you can constantly keep your ammunition up. But somehow, the guns are still pretty balanced (except, again, for the stupid-powerful guns, and the ****-tastic needler).

 

This is my point. You don't need these special weapons unless you're in "boss fight" or equivalent of it meaning that ammo limit of such guns is arbitary as it won't effect most of the gameplay time at all.

 

I wonder how much shooters you've actually played. For example in Medal of Honors high-end nazi assault rifle has a lot of less ammo avalaible than your standard SMG, meaning you won't use it all the time as you should reserve assault rifle's bullets for more worthy opponents.

 

It doesn't affect gun balance itself directly but it makes "weaker" guns pointless and thus indirectly affecting gun balance.

 

as long as you wander around a little you can constantly keep your ammunition up

 

That little wandering about is still doing something isn't it? And if Halo allows you to shoot shoot shoot without care and yet be never in danger of running out of ammo it is its design decision. In case you've forgotten Halo is shooter, not RPG/Spygame (they really need their own name) hybrid. Their basic gameplay are different indeed.

 

None of the inspirational "JB's" fight in war like Master Chief. Nature of combat in these "JB's" products is quite different. Even in 24. Not even Jack Bauer is utilizing rush and shoot method on his enemies

 

 

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 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.

When did you ever use "special weapons" (in other words: gun with a handful of bullets) in FPSs except to kill the most powerful enemies? Did you ever use the rocket launcher on a grunt, or the pistol on a tank?

 

Again point was showcasing how meaningless it is that some special weapons have limited ammo.

[Xard]

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.

Because an AK-47 dealing high levels of damage can only possibly work if I can "only" carry hundreds of shots, instead of an infinite number? If this game has limited ammo, players will just stock up to ridiculous quantities, just like they always do, because they don't like running out of ammo.

 

Again you're mistaking this game belongs in HALO's genre. IF this game allows you to hoard hundreds of shots for AK-47 or other such high-end weapon it defeats whole point of having limited ammo.

 

You skipped my main arguments based on San Andreas, MGS's and Deus Ex completely here. Only in San Andreas you can hoard hundred of ammo and even then you can run dry of them.

 

I quote myself again, this time with boldings

 

"If you get spotted you can be sure you're in for trouble. If you're lucky enough have ammunition and gunpower enough so you can take down first one or two waves of defenders rushing against you with their FAMAS'ses blazing. However this only provides you temporary time of safety during which you must find place to hide in ASAP. Otherwise you'll be eventually gunned down or you run out of ammunition which just postpones inevitable if you're later spotted again and end up under assault.

 

In late game if you've secured for yourself a famas and many clips of ammunition for it you CAN take down the (already determined, I think it 3 or 4 at least on normal difficulty) amount of enemy strike teams send to take you down. Once you've dealt with them all alarm mode eventually goes off as there's no one left to search for you. This approach however results for you with considerable amount of damage taken and loss of ammunition. As you can't loot your enemies there's maximum of few times you can take this approach in short period of time. After few of these kind of encounters you're out of ammo and rations (to get your health back up), meaning you're in deep **** if you now get spotted.

After you complete the game you get FAMAS with unlimited ammo supply. With it you can practically blaze the whole game through.

 

Same in MGS2 and MGS3. In second game encounters with enemy squads are even more deadly as they're equipped with shields etc. They're not unwinnable but challenging enough and if you head from such fight to fight you end up just like in MGS1 - in trouble as you've ran out of ammunition and other equipment, making direct combat the very last solution.

 

In MGS3 you get M16 with unlimited ammo after you complete the game. With it you can just shoot your way through the game way more effectively than in MGS1 as you can aim from first person, making game essentially easy shooter. "

 

Bolded and italiced are fate of this game type if given unlimited ammo. These games are not shooters foremost.

 

MGS's (just like San Andreas or Deus Ex) let you hoard ammunition but it is very easy to run out of ammunition in MGS's, defeating your point about gamers stocking themselves up. If designers know what they're doing they don't give players chance to hoard enough.

 

"Ammo capacity is unique for each game and set to suit the purpose of the game. That's something Obsidian should decide. If small ammo capacity is best for the game fine, if big, fine."

 

3) Again unless you use Rambo tactic with constantly shooting such situation shouldn't be too likely. Accurate, short burts with your AK-47 should be enough to bring your enemies down and after fight you could just loot their bodies to recover most of your lost ammunition. You could also buy ammo from the shops.

Okay, so apparently you don't want people who want to play with an AK-47 all the time, spraying-and-praying, to play the same game as you? Beyond which, running around like a moron and spraying bullets everywhere won't work because you will GET SHOT AT AND DIE.

 

Yes, I don't want people who want to use same gun in gunfight, use same attack in Tekken, use same car in Need For Speed etc. all the time to be target demography for the game I intend to enjoy. And judging by the vast majority of people here I'm not the only one.

 

Rambo allegory was in terms of how game approaches gunpower, not as in "running around shooting stuff in middle of field without cover".

 

 

In infinite ammo design this doesn't mean anything. Find cover and shoot from there to the general direction of enemy. They'll go down eventually

In finite ammo design this doesn't mean anything. Find cover and shoot from there to the general direction of enemy. They'll go down before you run out of ammo as long as you aren't firing randomly.

 

Exactly! You have to aim, choose bodyparts for different effects, swap weapons...

 

Hmmm, there's 3 guards down there around the well. I only have one clip left in my M16. I could try and take them out but I might need this ammo later...

 

Then I remember I have extra frag grenade in my pocket. I throw it - boom, two dead, one left. I button his forehead with my silenced pistol.

 

Same situation again, one clip in M16 but no hand grenades (as I might've used them earlier). I walk down, let them see me and run up the nearby staircase. At the top we have storage with explosive barrels spread around for good measure. I hop behind boxes and wait for the enemies to come. They rush in - I shoot nearby barrel and enjoy the fireworks. (if we can move objects around like in HL's and Deus Ex things could get a lot more nyanced in this tactic)

 

Or another solution. Maybe there's gun turret nearby and I have skill in hacking skill or equivalent of it. I slip from shadow to shadow, steal control of the turret from the main system and let it to do the dirty work.

 

If we get infinite ammo game doesn't encourage us to search for different solutions or to use our imagination.

 

Instead we find cover behind nearby column, jump out behind it, let them taste the fury, take cover again and repeat this one or two times.

 

This is approach you could also take with finite ammo if you want it, but if you're at the moment short of ammunition (which may not be case at all but is possible) you might be willing to search for other, more creative plans.

 

It is all about enhancing player creativity and search for alternative solutions and offering distinct possibilities which all seem to be just as legimite solutions. This is where largerly lies charm of Deus Ex - in fact one might consider above example as rewording of my Deus Ex argument which you "surprisingly enough" neglected.

 

 

4) This is not survival horror game but this is agent game. Special agents don't take down entire fortresses with their unlimited ammo supply. Rather they use tactics and skill if forced to fight. Not the minigun they nicked from nearby helicopter

Let me respond with a question: if in real life, someone had a magical AK-47 (or shotgun, or whatever) that never ran out of ammunition, do you think they could take down "entire fortresses"?

 

You haven't played much videogames amirite? That's basically what you do in 90 % of shooters. If you have danger of running out of ammunition for your big guns (read: no infinite ammo, no Halo approach) you might want to try some more nyanced tactics first. Or try and bust nearby gun warehouse as optional quest.

[Xard]

I have no worries about running out of ammo for my SMG or buckshot so I just rush in and quickly dispatch all enemies outside.

No, you get shot dead because you're running around and your enemies can shoot you.

 

Not in most games and especially not in Deus Ex if you know how to use your augmentations and have enough firepower. Infinite ammo gives the firepower and your superagent abilities work just like augmentations - I'll be very surprised if there won't be the generic "bullet time" mode of sorts.

 

I go inside, build cover from metal boxes and let myself to be seen by camera. Then I just shoot shoot shoot shoot and shoot enemies as they reach opposite end of the corridor.

Then they throw a grenade down the hallway, and you die. Your example rests on the AI acting like a retard, which can be manipulated with or without limited ammunition.

 

Out of my big Deus Ex related section you only picked this up. And this was very crude, simplified example yet even this is very legimate. If the corridor is long enough (as I envisioned) and you have infinite ammo you shoot them as they come from behind the corner before they get chance to throw 'nades. If you're now about to say then they would peak and take shots behind the corner I say yes, that may happen and following scenario is then pretty much same for both infinite and finite ammo design. With the exception that you may want to be a bit more careful and delicate with your aiming in finite ammo design. Under such situation there also isn't anything to be gained from infinite ammo design I might add.

 

And to be honest I believe this game will have quite average AI. They'd be drumming about their superawesome-AI already if that was the case and it's not like any OE game before has had anything but bad/average AI.

 

Even good AI's have their share of stupidities and this "run and rush" through the hellfire towards me is quite true possibility even in such games.

 

Oh wait, I forgot, shooting people with powerful guns makes it impossible for you to be shot - oh wait.

 

Again you're sneering at argument I never made.

 

 

MGS had big ammo capacity but you could still run out of ammo, same with many other games. Heck, it's possible to run out of ammo in nearly all shooters if you utilize tactics you'd use with infinite ammo design

I didn't realize "infinite ammo" meant "spray and pray". In fact, I'm quite certain that tactic would still be terrifyingly bad in every first person shooter ever made if almost every gun (except the rocket launchers and sniper rifles and such) had infinite ammunition.

 

"Spray and pray" works damn well in many games if you bother to use some cover (sometimes even without any cover at all). Especially if you've given superabilities on top of that all. Something Alpha Protocol is going to do. With slo-mo (which AP already has in Jack Bauer ability and most likely in dozen of other "feats") you can be in middle of plain and take enemies down with ease as Max Payne, Enter the Matrix etc. showcases

 

Other way to work is the a lot more repetitive and not any better approach GoW brought to us. Basically you're dead meat immeaditly when you're not covered and if you're in any kind of cover (behind cardboard box, heh) you're practically invincible against gunfire.

 

6) Haven't played Mass Effect but I very, very often hear as long as you ain't complete idiot you can just gun your enemies down utilizing Gears of War method.

That's wrong. If you try to just snipe your enemies from behind cover, your enemies will frequently close in on you. Let's use cover-shoot-cover while a Krogan slams the butt end of his gun in my face!

 

So they're basically abandonding their covers like in my corridor example to be shot down? Great

 

I wouldn't make any arguments based on ME AI which reportedly is most of the time extremely dumb and sometimes actually vicious.

[Xard]

As for gun lethality I've talked about it earlier.

No you didn't. Not in the sense of "don't stick your head out while you write '****' on the wall, or you will get shot." Just "without limited ammunition all the weapons will be ****," which is truly a grand logical leap.

 

This part of your response is what I call logical leap. Have you played games with unlimited ammo minus Mass Effect? Believe me, guns are toys in such games. In one James Bond game for PS2 there's one pistol with unlimited ammo

 

It is basically water pistol

 

GoW gameplay is insanely repetitive too and by no means favourable approach to the game. Not to mention it most of the time doesn't entail the "kicking in with blazing rifles" way that OE employees seem to buff as one approach.

I'm sorry, I thought we were complaining about how infinite ammo will somehow force me to get out from behind cover/use a stealthy approach and randomly spray bullets anywhere.

 

 

"Infinite ammo steals meaning from stealth and melee approach. Why one would ever bother to melee (if not for change of pace) as you can just shoot your enemies from other side of map with your sniper rifle with unlimitted ammo supply?

 

And why bother with cumbersome, slow stealthing when you can just bust in everywhere and kill anything with your twin Gatlings of Doom +1 ?" (Behind cover or with superpowahs activated in middle of field I might add)

 

 

 

 

----------------------------------

 

 

I and others have given many, many reasons WHY infinite ammo is bad design and numerous examples WHY finite ammo design hold many advantages

 

 

I haven't seen single reason why infinite ammo design would be BETTER than finite ammo design unless you expect me to believe "I want to be able to use one gun through the game and don't want to use other stuff because it's lame" is serious argument

 

edit: To put it simply you've been attacking MY THESIS, but you haven't shown any of YOUR OWN THESIS for preferring infinite ammo approach.

 

In mkreku's words:

 

"But unlimited ammo?? Who the hell made that decision? That's not quite as stupid as the Deus Ex: Invisible War unified ammo decision, but it's not far behind!

 

I love running out of ammo! I love having to switch to a new weapon when I've run out of ammo in my favourite one! I love finding a box of my favourite weapons ammo hidden away in some obscure place! I love having to take down as many enemies I can with headshots because I am low on ammo! I love fiddling in my inventory with different ammo types, trying to decide which weapon to use in which situation depending on the scarcity of the different ammo types!

 

Also, how the hell will they fool my mind into forgetting I am playing a game when I can't run out of ammo? Talk about breaking the immersion.."

Edited June 2, 2008 by Xard

[Xard]

The less things you have to collect the better. Infiinte ammo is the next step that started with people no longer being required to carry rations.

 

Yeah, it would be even better if we only had to push A once in a while to shoot

[Slowtrain]

Well, regardless of whether you are for or against infinite ammo, I would simply like to hear a developer clarify the rationale behind such a decision. Mostly because this would help me understand a little better what kind of game Alpha Protocol is going to be. I simply may have been working under a incorrect understanding of the direction I thought the game was going to go.

 

I am also curious about this idea that special weapons are needed for bosses. That also doesn't jibe with the what I understood about the gameplay. A serious spy crpg that draws inspiration from Syriana or even Kill Bill shouldn't really require any special waepons to kill bosses. Any ballistic slug thrower should do just fine. WHich makes me wonder exactly what kind of bosses the game will have that an AK or shotgun won't dispatch. Cyborgs? Aliens? Demons? Again, not what I expected.

 

 

The game is going to be what the game is going to be. I have no delusions about that. I would just like a little more info if possible.

 

edit: my atrocious spelling is out of control.

Edited June 2, 2008 by CrashGirl