PETITION: PLEASE CHANGE THE INFINITE AMMO DESIGN

[Gorgon]

Teh end of level boss is the minigun Hitler robot from doom.

[Xard]

I am also curious about this idea that special weapons are needed for bosses.

 

Or something equivalent for boss matches for example the classical "player vs. black helicpoter" match

 

But yeah, boss matches with special weapons seem to be out of place.

 

 

And that rationale behind decision is something we've been searching since beginning of the thread I believe

[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...

 

"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?

 

I read that too, but I was thinking MAYBE the reviewer saw that the dev playing the game, or during the reviewers play time, SAW that the ammo counter never dropped or something and made the ASSUMPTION that the game featured infinite ammo. Reviewers have been known to make stupid assumptions before...

 

I'm deffinitly on your side on the infinite ammo argument. Just hoping this is all a misunderstanding 'cause I just can't see the rationale.

 

It just reeks of lazy design. I feel the same way about regenerating health in the CoD series. Developers deciding they just don't want to bother with placing med kits, or even implementing a medic system so they throw in the easiest solution possible to save time.

[Slowtrain]

It just reeks of lazy design.

 

 

I hate to say it, but I smell the same odor as well. Whenever developers do something like regening health, infinite ammo, unified ammo etc, I always wonder first and foremost if this is something they are doing because they believe in it from a gameplay standpoint? Or is it really because they don't want to be bothered dealing with implementing and balancing ammo drops?

 

Its a terrible thing to say, really, especially since I have no evidence that such is the case, but I do always wonder.

[Xard]

Well, the regeneration thing actually has some basis because running over medkits is bleeding stupid. Still, the way CoD, Halo etc. is more retarted

 

 

Dream approach would be something akin what Ninja Gaiden II will use. There'll be regeneration but it won't complete. To quote lead developer "that is boring!"

 

That it indeed is. And stupid

 

Ugh, it is aboue 3:30 AM in here. My brain hurts. "Goodnight" everybody

Edited June 2, 2008 by Xard

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Splinter Cell-like ammo limitations would be nice, which usually means using the small amount of ammo you can carry in a smart way.

 

Though technically, you COULD take the guns the baddies'll drop and start blasting away.

 

 

NVM actually. This game needs to be smart about ammo, and I'm not just saying it should be limited. You should actually consider picking it up during a firefight would take some time and that reloading just means you're switching cartridges (what that means is that the bullets you had remaining in the cartridge don't magically complete another cartridge).

[Cycloneman]

Shortened to reduce wall-of-text factor.

 

You want my thesis? Fine.

 

Thesis: I do not like video games forcing me to do things. It is one thing if a video game doesn't support a given option (like it's Metal Slug and I can't sneak around), it is another if I could be playing it "my" way, but because I didn't give my daily sacrifice to the Great Merchant God, I'm forced to play it some other way.

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

I can't imagine why, in a game where almost all guns have a finite supply of bullets, the one that has unlimited bullets, it doesn't do anywhere near as much damage. Really, I can't

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

Yeah... unless you hit a Krogan with one of the "stop them in their tracks" abilities like Throw, on Hardcore there is no way you're going to kill them in time.

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

I can't come up with a single reason why that's not a serious argument except "I want to force other people to play through with multiple weapons even if they don't want to, because if they aren't playing the game the same way as me, they're playing it wrong."

 

Infinite ammo design is better because:

• Forcing me to play scavenger hunt/shopkeeper whore just so I can use the weapon I like is not cool.

• It helps me focus on actually playing the way I like rather than counting bullets (whatever "the way I like" is, stealth or gunplay or trapping).

• It helps supply a reason to actually use machine guns and similar high-power ammo-eating weapons; with finite ammunition, that would end up with you out of ammo pretty quick if you did it often and your character's special personal firearm didn't just so happen to use the same type of ammunition as various grunts in different countries.

Edited June 2, 2008 by Cycloneman

[Tigranes]

I do not like video games forcing me to do things.

 

On some occasions, freedom is the best, sure, but on others, restriction and boundaries is exactly what makes an experience fun and exciting. There's nothing inherently wrong with 'being forced' to do things.

 

I can't come up with a single reason why that's not a serious argument except "I want to force other people to play through with multiple weapons even if they don't want to, because if they aren't playing the game the same way as me, they're playing it wrong."

 

It's nothing to do with what you are saying it is, though. It's not about forcing people to play in a particular way. More than anything, limited ammo is a way of making you think about what you are doing and having consequences for your actions, which inter-connects various encounters and the dungeon/mission as a whole, rather than having each separate encounter/room become a world in itself. That's the biggest advantage.

 

Then there are other things such as encouraging you to mix up your tactics (arguably, if the AI was good enough, even with unlimited ammo you wouldn't be able to use the same tactic/trick/exploit every time, but we're nowhere near that stage yet), and therefore not only make the game more challenging, but make it more interesting. You can tell me that with unlimited ammo, people can 'mix it up' whenever they want to, but that is not how it works in reality. If I can use Gun X and just burst everywhere in every single room, and it is more efficient than mixing up Gun X with Gun Y and a bit of Skill/Projectile/Item Z, then even if I decide to 'mix things up' myself, I am going to feel like I am only fooling myself. This is a very, very popular sentiment amongst gamers in almost every game. Anybody who has read game forums or talked to gamers for any period of time will know this: people say things like "it sort of got borign when I got Gun X, 'cause it was so overpowered - it was better than anything else, and I just didn't see a point in using anything else." You can say that if the AI and enemy/level design are good, then no single gun would be the best choice in all rooms; sure. But with limited ammo you open up even more interesting challenges - e.g. you know Gun X would be the best option in this area, but you wasted some ammo (or whatever) and don't have that much. Unable to use the 'most efficient option' in that specific situation all of the time you are going to be looking at alternatives, makeshift solutions and that is a lot more challenging and interesting than figuring out what does the job in that situation and just spamming it.

 

It helps me focus on actually playing the way I like rather than counting bullets (whatever "the way I like" is, stealth or gunplay or trapping).

 

Actually, what you describe isn't 'a freedom of choice' on how to play: it's simply 'indulgence'. i.e. I want to walk into a given situation without preparation or thought, then I want to be able to have fun using whatever weapons I want, then move on without having to scavenge around for bullets. I'm not saying this is 'bad' or 'stupid' or whatever. Fair play to you, if that's what you want to do. But perhaps you can see how the option you advocate doesn't actually give everybody the freedom to play however they want to play: it opens up the possibility of a specific, indulgent (meant as a purely descriptive and not pejorative term) type of play, but forecloses possibilities of a consequential, scarcity-based, logistics kind of play. It's not a competition between unlimited ammo=freedom for all and limited ammo=one way it should be played: it's a debate between two different modes of playing that each have their advantages and disadvantages.

 

[random n00b]

That's it. Customers can be rather scummy, selfish, and egotistical. I hate 'em.

I'm sure the feeling is mutual...

 

 

Don't like it deal with it don't buy the game.

Yeah. I guess if you ever find something you don't like about life, you'll end up kissing the barrel, right?

 

Because trying to change that which you don't like is simply out of the question.

 

 

WHich makes me wonder exactly what kind of bosses the game will have that an AK or shotgun won't dispatch. Cyborgs? Aliens? Demons?

How about some dude in a bunker? You know, the flesh-and-blood kind, only behind six feet of concrete. Hell, scrap the concrete. How about a guy that's a mile away, riding on a bike?

 

 

Thesis: I do not like video games forcing me to do things. It is one thing if a video game doesn't support a given option (like it's Metal Slug and I can't sneak around), it is another if I could be playing it "my" way, but because I didn't give my daily sacrifice to the Great Merchant God, I'm forced to play it some other way.

I can sympathise with the feeling of frustration when a game forces you to take a certain approach, when others that would appear completely consistent with the setting simply are not presented, without explanation.

 

What I do not agree with is using that as an excuse to explain things that obviously don't fit with the mood of the game. AP is supposedly a somewhat serious spy-themed game, set around present time. They ran out of ammo in The Matrix. Bond runs out of ammo, as does Bourne. But simply because you don't like to be forced to a conservative use of your one favourite gun, that is reason enough to implement a design element that makes no sense whatsoever, from an in-world POV? I don't think it's a matter of realism, but a matter of setting consistency. People die when they are shot, and guns can't fire forever.

 

You don't like running out of ammo as a result of indiscriminate use of your resources, so you demand infinite ammo. I don't like dying as a result of me making stupid decisions. I like my stupid decisions. So I demand god mode enabled by default.

[Cycloneman]

Okay, quick question before we continue: If the amount of ammunition you could easily carry for the various firearms was so vast and the method of maintenance was so commonplace that unless you just shot bullets all over the place at random, it would be pretty much impossible to run out of ammo, would you be okay with that? If not, please stop using arguments that would be invalidated in such a situation.

 

Functionally infinite ammunition (of that sort) is basically indistinguishable from infinite ammunition. It's a waste of time and resources to build such a system.

 

Ammo starvation "you have eight bullets to kill sixteen enemies" is for survival horror games, not games where I'm supposed to be an incredible superspy.

 

On some occasions, freedom is the best, sure, but on others, restriction and boundaries is exactly what makes an experience fun and exciting. There's nothing inherently wrong with 'being forced' to do things.

Yeah, sure. But limited ammunition is an incredibly distinct way of being forced to do something. When I'm in Resident Evil 4 and I'm forced to use harpoons to kill the lake monster, that's one thing. I never had a choice about the harpoons. It's not as though if I had done something differently I would be able to kill it with my machine gun (note: I never tried, just roll with this example). But with ammunition... I could be doing what I want to, and that fact that I'm in a situation where I could be doing what I want, but I can't because I didn't play "correctly."

 

Then there are other things such as encouraging you to mix up your tactics (arguably, if the AI was good enough, even with unlimited ammo you wouldn't be able to use the same tactic/trick/exploit every time, but we're nowhere near that stage yet), and therefore not only make the game more challenging, but make it more interesting. You can tell me that with unlimited ammo, people can 'mix it up' whenever they want to, but that is not how it works in reality. If I can use Gun X and just burst everywhere in every single room, and it is more efficient than mixing up Gun X with Gun Y and a bit of Skill/Projectile/Item Z, then even if I decide to 'mix things up' myself, I am going to feel like I am only fooling myself. This is a very, very popular sentiment amongst gamers in almost every game. Anybody who has read game forums or talked to gamers for any period of time will know this: people say things like "it sort of got borign when I got Gun X, 'cause it was so overpowered - it was better than anything else, and I just didn't see a point in using anything else." You can say that if the AI and enemy/level design are good, then no single gun would be the best choice in all rooms; sure. But with limited ammo you open up even more interesting challenges - e.g. you know Gun X would be the best option in this area, but you wasted some ammo (or whatever) and don't have that much. Unable to use the 'most efficient option' in that specific situation all of the time you are going to be looking at alternatives, makeshift solutions and that is a lot more challenging and interesting than figuring out what does the job in that situation and just spamming it.

Why do there have to be power rankings to weapons? Which is better for getting past a bunch of armed security guards: a silenced pistol or a high-powered assault rifle? Depends on how you approach the task. A high-powered assault rifle is going to be **** for making your way through stealthily, and a silenced pistol is going to be equally **** for blasting your way past them.

 

Actually, what you describe isn't 'a freedom of choice' on how to play: it's simply 'indulgence'. i.e. I want to walk into a given situation without preparation or thought, then I want to be able to have fun using whatever weapons I want, then move on without having to scavenge around for bullets. I'm not saying this is 'bad' or 'stupid' or whatever. Fair play to you, if that's what you want to do. But perhaps you can see how the option you advocate doesn't actually give everybody the freedom to play however they want to play: it opens up the possibility of a specific, indulgent (meant as a purely descriptive and not pejorative term) type of play, but forecloses possibilities of a consequential, scarcity-based, logistics kind of play. It's not a competition between unlimited ammo=freedom for all and limited ammo=one way it should be played: it's a debate between two different modes of playing that each have their advantages and disadvantages.

And scarcity-based logistics in terms of ammunition is hardly a key element to action games or RPGs. It's fine in games where it actually remains relevant, like survival horror games, but let's face it: limited ammunition for anything other than rocket launchers does very little, since if you run around with an assault rifles enemies will die, and then you will pick up bullets from their assault rifles.

Thesis: I do not like video games forcing me to do things. It is one thing if a video game doesn't support a given option (like it's Metal Slug and I can't sneak around), it is another if I could be playing it "my" way, but because I didn't give my daily sacrifice to the Great Merchant God, I'm forced to play it some other way.

I can sympathise with the feeling of frustration when a game forces you to take a certain approach, when others that would appear completely consistent with the setting simply are not presented, without explanation.

 

What I do not agree with is using that as an excuse to explain things that obviously don't fit with the mood of the game. AP is supposedly a somewhat serious spy-themed game, set around present time. They ran out of ammo in The Matrix. Bond runs out of ammo, as does Bourne. But simply because you don't like to be forced to a conservative use of your one favourite gun, that is reason enough to implement a design element that makes no sense whatsoever, from an in-world POV? I don't think it's a matter of realism, but a matter of setting consistency. People die when they are shot, and guns can't fire forever.

And if you get shot you can't just walk it off or pick up a medkit to instantly bring yourself back up to full health. When you get hurt, you lose your ability to fight well, rather than remaining perfectly capable until the last slimmer of hit points go down. In spy movies, there is no HUD or pause menu (except for whatever you're watching it on).

 

You don't like running out of ammo as a result of indiscriminate use of your resources, so you demand infinite ammo. I don't like dying as a result of me making stupid decisions. I like my stupid decisions. So I demand god mode enabled by default.

I don't indiscriminately use my resources, thank you very much. Except for the pea shooter gun in Metal Slug, but that's because there are enemies every three inches to pump full of lead, and it's best to shoot them before you can see them. Edited June 2, 2008 by Cycloneman

[Gorth]

Ammo starvation "you have eight bullets to kill sixteen enemies" is for survival horror games, not games where I'm supposed to be an incredible superspy.

Why not? Your "incredible superspy" is not necessarily working for the CIA anymore. Regular supply lines may have dried up and you have to use a mixture of skills to accomplish goals. A good diplomacy skill might help you on the black market to secure new ammo.

[Humodour]

Personally I prefer when devs are mostly silent on their projects. A few reasons, but namely that too much transparency can ruin expectations (e.g. produce negative hype about a feature that sounds not-so-good, but actually works well in the game), as well it also often gives fans a false sense of control or importance in the decision making process.

 

I think ultimately it's better if developers remain in a position of promoting their game rather than explaining their decisions; so there is still room for them to interact with us on these boards, but perhaps not in the capacity Xard desires.

 

This is all true for developers who actually know what they are doing, of course. If this were DX:IW, I'd be telling them (and I did) to listen to the ****ing fans because dumbing the game down for the console market is a stupid ****ing idea, thank you very much. I still hold hope that Obsid is 'streamlining' the game because they actually want to accomplish some nifty RPG device. But if it is just to dumb it down for the console...

[Hell Kitty]

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

 

If I knew that I'd be making oodles of cash as a game designer. Oodles.

 

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

 

That's true. Weapons choice in games all too often comes down to little more than what you'd like to use, with most weapons being effective in all circumstances. Just don't use shotguns for long range or sniper rifles at close range. Same old, same old.

 

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.

 

I still think it's a case or either make ammo conservation an important element of gameplay (such as in survival horror) or don't make it an issue at all. All or nothing. I'd prefer the former, as I would have expected something like Gorth mentions, with your supplies being limited due to your rogue status. Of course I still want them to rip off the RE4 inventory system because I love playing inventory tetris. I can't pimp that **** enough. If ammo is especially limited, they'd also need to allow us to pick up enemy weapons, and no one is complaining about that, does that mean people have no objection to not being able to collect enemy weapons? Shame, I'd love a Hitman style weapons collection deal. An interesting choice of weapons and the ability to mod them if more important to me though.

 

Anyway, a while ago I was playing through the terrorist hunt levels in Rainbow Six Vegas 2, using only the pistol, which *gasp* features unlimited ammo. Whether you like it or not isn't relevant (that's for you Gorgon) to what I'm getting at, having a neverending supply of clips doesn't turn you into the super man that Xard seems to think it will. Even when I was using the glock with it's ability to pump out a lot more bullets than other pistols I don't have a completely different play style compared to the limited weapons.

 

I am also curious about this idea that special weapons are needed for bosses.

 

The article mentions nothing about special weapons for boss fights, or even any boss fights at all, only that special weapons will have limited ammo. All this could mean is that we won't have an unlimited supply of explosives. Maybe sniper rifles will count as special and be limited? Who knows. It's too early to get out panties in a tizz about specifics. Of course it's also early enough that combined whining could lead to change. Everybody wins!

 

It just reeks of lazy design. I feel the same way about regenerating health in the CoD series. Developers deciding they just don't want to bother with placing med kits, or even implementing a medic system so they throw in the easiest solution possible to save time.

 

Like it or not, regenerating health is a way to remove to med kit hunt element that features in so many games. Accusing devs of using the feature because they are lazy just reeks of a poor attempt at insulting devs for implementing a feature you don't like.

 

But if it is just to dumb it down for the console...

 

Dude you need to stop saying that, it just make you look stoopid. Didn't Diablo give you an unlimited amount of arrows? Was that Blizzards attempt to appeal to those console kiddiez that can't quite get their head around the concept of limited ammunition, a concept they are as familiar with as PC gamers?

Edited June 2, 2008 by Hell Kitty

[Humodour]

Stupid hey? Check the aggregate reviews that console gamers gave DX:IW compared to what the PC gamers gave it. Check the more simplistic controllers of console games, check the difficulty in doing more complex tasks, modding, optimising the game, etc on a console (controller), and I honestly dare you to tell me that console gamers have exactly the same mindset, expectations and tastes as PC RPG gamers, or even PC gamers in general.

 

Moreover, the streamlining process was directly attributed by various IW devs to be due to Eidos's desire for a game that would appeal to console gamers more - a 'triple A' game supposedly. There is a definite notion in the industry that console gamers want less complexity and more 'streamlined' almost arcade-style games they can just pick up and put down as the whim arises; whether it is true or not is not the actual point of contention.

 

Console games are different, not necessarily dumber. But trying to force a PC game to appeal to console gamers as well means you're not marketing either niche exclusively, which aside from rare gems produces games which don't appeal much to either audience (DX:IW); better to pick one and stick (and port later if you will, as with DX1 or ME).

 

And good job using Diablo as an example of why unlimited ammo is a good idea. Yeah, that's exactly what we want Alpha Protocol to be like.

[simulacra]

/Signed

 

But if the devs keep the infinite ammo design I do hope that it's the TOTAL amount of bullets that are infinite and not in your gun, I still want those stressing reloads in a gunfight...

[Spider]

Console games are different, not necessarily dumber. But trying to force a PC game to appeal to console gamers as well means you're not marketing either niche exclusively, which aside from rare gems produces games which don't appeal much to either audience (DX:IW); better to pick one and stick (and port later if you will, as with DX1 or ME).

 

Just out of curiosity, are you looking at Alpha Protocol as a PC game that is being adapted to consoles? Because I'm definitely looking at it the other way around, a game designed primarily for consoles, that is also happening to get a simultaneous PC port.

 

So if infinite ammo is something that appeals to the console gamers mindset, then they definitely should include it.

 

Personally I'm thinking in the lines of Hell Kitty. If limited ammo is to be in the game (or any game) it needs to be relevant. Ammo needs to be so scarce that I sometimes have to do without. If it's just finite for the sake of finite, but with enough of it to never really matter, then it might just as well be infinite. I would prefer it to be infinite clips rather than clips with no bottom though, but can live with it either way.

[Hell Kitty]

Check the aggregate reviews that console gamers gave DX:IW compared to what the PC gamers gave it.

 

Both versions got similar reviews from critics, and the game was generally disliked by both console and PC gamers.

 

Check the more simplistic controllers of console games

 

In what way do you think console controllers are more simplistic compared to keyboard and mouse? The mouse will always be faster than the analogue stick, but that's not a complexity issue, and while the keyboard has more keys, more keys doesn't equal more complex. Thief on PC, for example, uses 5 keys for movement, and 2 more keys to modify movement speed. The same level of functionality can be achieved with one analogue stick. Triggers and pressure sensitive buttons allow for functionality not seen on PC as well.

 

check the difficulty in doing more complex tasks

 

The difficulty in performing complex tasks depends on software.

 

Anyway, complex doesn't equal good. Trespasser on PC features a complex control system that makes usually simple tasks, like picking up items, a needlessly complex chore.

 

modding

 

PC gaming will always have modding as a plus, but that has nothing to the supposed simplicity of console gamers. Just look at content like the hundreds of skimpy clothing for Oblivion. Not the product of a complex mind.

 

optimising the game, etc on a console (controller)

 

I'm not even sure what you mean here. Consoles don't need to optimize thanks to fixed hardware. Altering the control setup depends on the game, just like PC, though it's true most console games have a fixed setup.

 

I honestly dare you to tell me that console gamers have exactly the same mindset, expectations and tastes as PC RPG gamers, or even PC gamers in general.

 

This is just nonsense. I dare you to tell me that PC gamers all have exactly the same mindset, expectations and tastes as each other. The same is true of PC RPG gamers or console gamers. None of these groups is some sort of hivemind.

 

And where do people like me, who are both PC and console gamers fit into your black and white view of gamers.

 

Moreover, the streamlining process was directly attributed by various IW devs to be due to Eidos's desire for a game that would appeal to console gamers more - a 'triple A' game supposedly. There is a definite notion in the industry that console gamers want less complexity and more 'streamlined' almost arcade-style games they can just pick up and put down as the whim arises; whether it is true or not is not the actual point of contention.

 

If developers really do think this way then is just shows that they don't really understand consoles as a system. I don't think they believe this anyway. Streamlining and simplifying is a result of the popularity of gaming as a whole, not just gaming on one system. Arcade style gaming isn't exclusive to consoles, just look at the popularity of casual gaming on PC, all the hidden object and gem and dinner dash stuff.

 

But trying to force a PC game to appeal to console gamers

 

AP isn't a PC game, it's a multiplatform game. It's not about "how can we make this PC game more interesting to console gamers", it's "how do we make this game appealing to modern gamers".

 

And good job using Diablo as an example of why unlimited ammo is a good idea.

 

You've completely misunderstood. I'm not saying unlimited ammo is a good idea, I'm pointing out that your belief that it is an appeal to console gamers is wrong, by showing that it's a feature that has appeared in past PC games.

 

Honestly, from your post I'd be suprised if you have any real experience with console gaming.

Edited June 2, 2008 by Hell Kitty

[Slowtrain]

@Hell Kitty and Spider, those were some interesting points. Thank you.

 

I would still like to see some developer explanantion and or clarification on the issue, cimply because I am kind of confused about what kidn of game Alpha Protocol is suppsed to be. But I guess we will all find out eventually, won't we?

 

 

I do believe that streamlining is something that has just become SOP in modern games as developers chase big sales and mass appeal, but I would hate to see ammunition got the way of the bedroll and the food in crpgs or games in general. I personally do believe that streamling will be with us for a while but will eventually hit a point where the pendulum swings back the other way and fattenign your your games will become the selling point.

 

Or so I hope. I'll personally always hold to the belief that a fat game is better than a streamlined game, even if neither one is perfect.

[Tale]

I refuse to sign any petition on principle, unless the petition is funny or relates to excessively long ladder climbs. This does neither.

 

However, I do generally prefer limited ammo and the resultant complexities to unlimited ammo and the relative simplicity as a principle. On the other hand, I fully accept that the aforementioned resultant complexities of a limited ammo design may not add anything of significance in the design of a particular game and may indeed detract from the more core interests of that design. As an example, limited ammo designs may be harder to pace or result in undesireable breaks in pacing where the player has to seek out ammo.

 

And, personally, I've very rarely ever seen ammo used in any serious conservation by a game. It's usually so ridiculously abundant that my only concern is making sure that I use my full weapons so that I don't "waste" the next stash. Many such games would probably be better off with unlimited ammo just so I don't feel so compelled to weapon juggle.

Edited June 2, 2008 by Tale

[Gorgon]

Edit : Wrong thread

Edited June 2, 2008 by Gorgon

[Nick_i_am]

And, personally, I've very rarely ever seen ammo used in any serious conservation by a game. It's usually so ridiculously abundant that my only concern is making sure that I use my full weapons so that I don't "waste" the next stash. Many such games would probably be better off with unlimited ammo just so I don't feel so compelled to weapon juggle.

 

Cirtainly games which use 'realistic' weapons, which are, from weapon to weapon, pretty much as effective as each other. Sure, limited ammo has a use in somthing like Half-life, where infinite ammo on the rocket-launcher or Egon would make all others pointless, but playing Vegas 2 i've never had ammo problems, and cirtainly never in a way that contributed to the gameplay.

 

Gorgron might be bitter against the fact that the pistols have infinite ammo, but on a backup weapon (esspesally on the only weapon you can use on a rope) you won't see me complaining. wah wah not realitic, but if I wanted realism above fun I wouldn't be playing on a console in the first place.

[walkerguy]

I wonder how much influence the Obsidian Forums really has on Obsidian's developers...

 

/signed

 

*I'll have a 360 by then ('09), so I really do care

Edited June 2, 2008 by walkerguy

[random n00b]

And if you get shot you can't just walk it off or pick up a medkit to instantly bring yourself back up to full health. When you get hurt, you lose your ability to fight well, rather than remaining perfectly capable until the last slimmer of hit points go down. In spy movies, there is no HUD or pause menu (except for whatever you're watching it on).

Nope. Not in any of the examples I used, anyway. In those, heroes and villains are constantly receiving insane amounts of physical punishment, and walking out of it, no problem. And any attacks that would kill or seriously cripple them are resolved as "close calls", unless there's a plot reason to inflict a serious injury on a major character.

 

It's not too much of a stretch to assume that the game mechanic that represents "hit points (or whatever)" is not a simplification of all the variables on which health is dependant, but merely a representation of how close the character is to receiving a fatal injury. I thought this was pretty obvious.

 

Again, it's not realism. It's in-universe consistency.

 

 

I don't indiscriminately use my resources, thank you very much.

Then I don't see how finite ammo could be a problem. Survival horror games and metal slug don't really support your points. This is a completely different kind of game, and design features that defined ammunition availability factors in those games are not the same here.

 

 

Just out of curiosity, are you looking at Alpha Protocol as a PC game that is being adapted to consoles? Because I'm definitely looking at it the other way around, a game designed primarily for consoles, that is also happening to get a simultaneous PC port.

 

So if infinite ammo is something that appeals to the console gamers mindset, then they definitely should include it.

Ouch. You might have hit the nail on the head there.

[Pidesco]

There are plenty of game that use limited ammo to great gameplay effect. System Shock would be the best example, I guess, but also the first Rainbow Six games would be stupid and not half as fun with infinite ammo, and the same goes for Deus Ex, or even NOLF which had masses of ammo but not for all weapons.

 

I guess that in AP at least the silenced handgun *must* have limited ammo.

[Nick_i_am]

Ammo was never a problem in R6 games, so i'm not sure I follow that point.

 

Given that each character only had one gun (+ sidearm), and enough ammo that they realistically never ran out on a mission, the 'issue' of limited ammo or not is pretty irrelivent.

 

In games like fallout, system shock or Deus Ex, where efficent resorce managment is an important part of the game, limited ammo actually matters. Likewise, in 'traditional' FPSs like doom, where there's a specific hirachy of weapons, limited ammo for the more powerful weapons actually matters.

 

But for games where health and number of firearms you're able to carry at one time is limited, the effect of 'ammo' on gameplay becomes more and more moot.

 

You want realism? For me, the realisation that, in Vegas 2, when changing clips on an SMG lead to an extra bullet on the 'count' was due to there already being a bullet in the chamber from the previous clip made me very happy.